https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69780
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69777
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67278
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69773
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68645
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68158
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
Hi Guys ,
we do have a issue with below code ,When we enabled the pie (-fpie/pie) option
i.e
main.c
extern int *my_ptr ;
int main()
{
return *my_ptr;
}
foo.s
.syntax unified
.cpu cortex-m0
.fpu softvfp
.thumb
.global my_ptr
.global my_var
.data
.align 2
.type my_pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69774
Guille changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991
m.facchin at arduino dot cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.facchin at arduino dot cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that this has gone latent on trunk with r233267
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #14 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Okay,
I've tried:
1. Run AVX-512 testing on Spec2006 and see no impact of the one-liner:
Geomeans:
INT : 5.11 5.11+0.05%
FP : 2.73 2.73-0.08%
ALL : 3.54 3.54-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, my preference is to back out the cse.c one-liner for GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
extern void *malloc (__SIZE_TYPE__);
extern void abort (void);
void __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
foo (int *pi)
{
if (*pi != 1)
abort ();
}
int
main()
{
void *p = malloc(sizeof (double));
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 69771 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.7
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
Bug ID: 69782
Summary: [6 Regression] defining min() macro causes thousand of
lines of error messages
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The fix is easy in this case, just #include after the macro
definition.
luminance-hdr-2.3.0/src/HdrCreation/robertson02.cpp
From
30 #include "arch/math.h"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69783
Bug ID: 69783
Summary: [6 Regression] Loop is not vectorized after r233212
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69783
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37671&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It needs to be compiled with -Ofast -funroll-loops on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 12 11:57:54 2016
New Revision: 233374
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/68672
* ipa-split.c (split_function): Don't compute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 12 11:59:00 2016
New Revision: 233375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/69241
* ipa-split.c (split_function): If split par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43434
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Now that strided SLP is implemented we run into
t.c:10:3: note: versioning for alias required: can't determine dependence
between *s1_82 and MEM[(DCTELEM *)block_81 clique 1 base 1]
t.c:10:3: note: mark for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #30 from Hector Oron ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #28)
> (In reply to Hector Oron from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> > > Re-adding GCC 6 as regression, though graphviz is not gsoap.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69784
Bug ID: 69784
Summary: Range-based for loop can
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69784
Csaba Osztrogonác changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Range-based for loop can|Range-based for loop can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69784
--- Comment #2 from Csaba Osztrogonác ---
If we explicitly add the type of element, we get a different error:
main.cpp:10:18: error: ‘begin’ was not declared in this scope
for (int i : i)
^
main.cpp:10:18: note: suggested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69784
--- Comment #3 from Csaba Osztrogonác ---
In WebKit project we had to submitted at least 2 workarounds due to this bug:
- https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151622
- https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154162
( side note: clang builds t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69729
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Well, using thunk.add_pointer_bounds_args to determine intrumentation thunks in
this condition works fine for me. Let's change the condition then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69784
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54430
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oszi at inf dot u-szeged.hu
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69729
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Feb 12 13:17:28 2016
New Revision: 233376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/69729
* lto-streamer-out.c (lto_output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69729
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69783
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69783
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Similar thing can be observed in PR69732.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69783
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37672&action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69783
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, I have a local patch in my tree waiting for an excuse to check in that does
t.c:18:8: note: improved number of alias checks from 50 to 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69785
Bug ID: 69785
Summary: c++filt can't demangle string or compiler produce
wrong mangled string
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69579
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 12 14:04:29 2016
New Revision: 233378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-12 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 12 14:04:29 2016
New Revision: 233378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-12 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69574
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 12 14:04:29 2016
New Revision: 233378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-12 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69579
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69785
--- Comment #1 from Nikolay Piskun ---
I can send a test program, but its rather long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69534
Kamil Dudka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kdudka at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #16 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Yeah, my preference is to back out the cse.c one-liner for GCC 6.
IMO the cse.c patch is the correct fix for the code quality regression seen on
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69786
Bug ID: 69786
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.c++/loop-11.C (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69786
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69770
--- Comment #2 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00881.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69753
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69753
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> Is this actually bogus?
>
> [over.call.func] says:
>
> If the keyword this (9.3.2) is in scope and refers to class T, or a derived
> class of T, then the implie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69787
Bug ID: 69787
Summary: class only emitted as declaration in DWARF
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69787
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.3.1
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey ---
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Created attachment 37674
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37674&action=edit
Candidate testsuite addition
Here's a reduced version of the testcase. Could you verify that it passes on PA
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I managed to trigger the test returning 0 from the command line, by running it
in parallel:
...
$ ( export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd -P)/install/lib64; for cnt in $(seq 1 400); do
(./a.out ; echo $? ) >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > Yeah, my preference is to back out the cse.c one-liner for GCC 6.
>
> IMO the cse.c patch is the correct fix for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69771
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 12 16:49:44 2016
New Revision: 233381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69764
PR rtl-optimization/69771
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 12 16:49:44 2016
New Revision: 233381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69764
PR rtl-optimization/69771
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] ICE on |[5 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37675
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37675&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69265
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 17:39:27 2016
New Revision: 233382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/69265 and 69453: improved suggestions for various misspelled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 17:39:27 2016
New Revision: 233382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/69265 and 69453: improved suggestions for various misspelled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69265
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> it can be less than trivial. A fairly easy way to avoid having to deal with
> the problem in libstdc++ is to enclose every call to min and max in public
> libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> That doesn't help for std::numeric_limits::min()
Martin corrected me, (numeric_limits::min)() will work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69567
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Feb 12 18:32:21 2016
New Revision: 233384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: More distribute_notes trouble (PR69737)
PR64682 is a probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64682
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Feb 12 18:32:21 2016
New Revision: 233384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: More distribute_notes trouble (PR69737)
PR64682 is a prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69737
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Feb 12 18:32:21 2016
New Revision: 233384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: More distribute_notes trouble (PR69737)
PR64682 is a probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69779
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 18:37:35 2016
New Revision: 233385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/69779: fix bogus cleanup code used by libgccjit affecting s39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 19:18:03 2016
New Revision: 233386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/69554: avoid excessive source printing for widely-separated l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Bug 60526 depends on bug 69554, which changed state.
Bug 69554 Summary: [6 Regression] Multi-location diagnostics writes too many
lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69668
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 12 19:52:13 2016
New Revision: 233387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-12 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/69668
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
Bug ID: 69788
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/derived_constructor_comps_6.f90 -O0
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69668
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 12 21:02:02 2016
New Revision: 233388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-12 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/69668
* gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69789
Bug ID: 69789
Summary: g++ -O2 is removing tests against a variable that can
be changed
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69789
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Markwalder ---
Created attachment 37676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37676&action=edit
compressed compilation temp file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69790
Bug ID: 69790
Summary: LTO compiling GCC does not work (lib/bfd-plugin path
has unclear location)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69791
Bug ID: 69791
Summary: ICE in ultimate_transparent_alias_target, at
varasm.c:1263
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69792
Bug ID: 69792
Summary: spurious warning for UDL declaration with
parenthesized literal-operator-id
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69737
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160212 (experimental) [trunk revision 233377] (GCC)
$ g++-trunk abc.cc
abc.cc:2:12: error: ‘state’ has not been declared
template < state > bool operator!= (fpos,; operator!=
^
abc.cc:2:42:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57553
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5)
I think I mixed up gfc_option.warn_std and gfc_option.allow_std
in the previous patch. A revised version follows:
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69794
Bug ID: 69794
Summary: [5 Regression] std::regex_search match failure with
regex object with flags grep|icase
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
