https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66685
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-06-30, at 4:36 PM, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Sorry, I missed that this was after r225000. Does the attached patch fix it?
No, we still have same error.
--
John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66618
--- Comment #3 from Keith Thompson ---
It would be easier to argue that gcc accepts "other forms of constant
expressions" if (a) those other forms were documented and (b) they were
accepted at all optimization levels.
Admittedly the standard do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #21 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Jul 1 01:02:48 2015
New Revision: 225219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64833
* [SH] Set length of casesi_worker_1 insn to 8 when f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66686
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Jul 1 01:07:35 2015
New Revision: 225220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/66686 (dependent template template substitution)
gcc/cp/Chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66701
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But this isn't the place to propose changes to the ABI, because it's used by
several different compilers and if G++ started emitting a call to a different
version of __cxa_pure_virtual that would break comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #41 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #40)
> with my 4.9 native compiler built with 4.9 cross compiler for svn
> gcc-4_9-branch. I hope that miscompilation for mpfr is gone for
> bootstrappe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66713
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
#include
float *ptr;
std::atomic aptr;
template
T cas_original (T cmp_, T val_) {
T old;
__asm volatile(
"lock; cmpxchgq %2, %3"
: "=a" (old), "=m" (ptr)
: "r" (val_), "m" (ptr), "0" (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66713
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66691
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7)
> I'll commit the same patch into gcc-5 branch on next week after some testing
> the patch on trunk.
Please note that I have fixed the wrong PR number in the test
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo