https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69171
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 37244
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37244&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69029
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
Bug ID: 69177
Summary: Bit-packing optimization makes it too easy to have
location_t >= LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||69177
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Happens with r231970 also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69154
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||37131
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69140
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jan 6 20:19:04 2016
New Revision: 232111
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69140
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69092
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 6 20:34:41 2016
New Revision: 232112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove noexcept from function template that can throw
PR libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67824
--- Comment #1 from Erich Keane ---
I just reconfirmed this in 5.3.1 on Fedora:
gcc (GCC) 5.3.1 20151207 (Red Hat 5.3.1-2)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67755
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -g is not needed to reproduce the bug and speeds up the compiling a lot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 37245
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37245&action=edit
possible patch
Would this be an appropriate fix? It seems that if the source is a ref we
won't copy anything o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69178
Bug ID: 69178
Summary: [concepts] An invalid expression in a
requires-expression is evaluated too eagerly
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60890
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69178
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
This check happens in check_bases(), which doesn't take complain flags, so
wherever that check fails, it's always a hard error. I suppose the checking
function call chains that go to that function should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51049
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this has been fixed or at least for most cases. That is the & part is
redone during the combineif pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45927
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does this still happen in GCC 5?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69092
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
Summary|basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
It does fix it for arm-none-eabi targets, the test is now unsupported. I should
have done it myself. Jakub was talking about moving it in the cilk-plus
directory. Do you think it's still necessary?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68813
--- Comment #5 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Thu Jan 7 03:28:05 2016
New Revision: 232121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/68813
gcc/
* omp-low.c (is_oac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69179
Bug ID: 69179
Summary: undocumented darwin attributes
"apple_kext_compatibility" and "weak_import"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63192
Zhihao Yuan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lichray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63192
--- Comment #4 from Zhihao Yuan ---
(In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #3)
> Confirmed, please fix. As the standardization of `std::as_const`, this bug
> becomes significant.
Never mind, I will create another bug report to demonstrate my iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735
Zhihao Yuan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lichray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
lucdanton at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucdanton at free dot fr
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to lucdanton from comment #6)
> I've independently run into this bug and applying this patch to HEAD doesn't
> help on my end, the same ICE happens (except it is now pointing to line 6660
> of
> co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #8 from lucdanton at free dot fr ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7)
> (In reply to lucdanton from comment #6)
> > I've independently run into this bug and applying this patch to HEAD doesn't
> > help on my end, the same IC
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo