https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472
Bug ID: 70472
Summary: is_copy_constructible>>::value
is true
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
Bug ID: 70473
Summary: genautomata memory footprint for arm
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, memory-hog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472
--- Comment #1 from Askar Safin ---
Also, this code doesn't compile: http://paste.debian.net/422907/ and I think
this is related to this bug. If I decomment noexcept line, it compiles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I wonder why __builtin_atan2 doesn't expand to fpatan with fancy-math-387 and
> -ffast-math.
It does. You also have to use -mfpmath=387 if your compiler defaults
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I suppose that for specific cases like building a compiler for/on raspi one
could disable all but the "interesting" automaton?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70404
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I suppose that for specific cases like building a compiler for/on raspi one
> could disable all but the "interesting" automaton?
I don't think gena
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70430
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 31 08:49:09 2016
New Revision: 234611
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234611&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-31 Richard Biener
PR c++/70430
* typeck.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
Bug ID: 70474
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Several hundred asan failures with
4.9.4 on x86_64-apple-darwin15
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Bug ID: 70475
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation quetionable in Eigen
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
tic void internal14() {} } }
all external* should have external linkage and all internal* should have
internal linkage when compiled as C++11 or later.
But (at least on Linux with recent GCC trunk)
> $ gcc/trunk/inst/bin/g++ --version
> g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20160331 (experimental)
> Copyrig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> See discussion in PR69415.
Sorry wrong bug number.
IMHO it is OK to warn for the code above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 38143
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38143&action=edit
Proposed patch.
Does this patch fix the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70404
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
Andreas is already working on the issue, so before anybody spends any more work
on this, you should probably coordinate your efforts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23471
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
The case a*a has been handled for a while, both in fold-const.c
(tree_binary_nonnegative_warnv_p) and in VRP. However, the case a*a*a*a*a*a is
not handled. In the .optimized dump at -O3, we still have:
b_3 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
--- Comment #6 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> Sorry, but I don't understand what should be done to fix the chkp-stropt-*
> tests.
Basically all external dependencies just should be removed. There is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
--- Comment #4 from Ruslan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> ...
> nothing there is able to optimize & -1 (and similarly | or ^ 0, or & 0, or |
> -1).
Just a note: the same happens for arithmetic operations, not just bitwise. E.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70477
Bug ID: 70477
Summary: -Wtautological-compare too aggressive?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the logicals, e.g. the following works:
--- gcc/optabs.c.jj 2016-02-16 16:15:17.0 +0100
+++ gcc/optabs.c2016-03-31 12:53:37.571337401 +0200
@@ -1136,6 +1136,37 @@ expand_binop (machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
Bug ID: 70478
Summary: [LRA] S/390: Performance regression - superfluous
stack frame
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23471
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> The case a*a has been handled for a while, both in fold-const.c
> (tree_binary_nonnegative_warnv_p) and in VRP. However, the case a*a*a*a*a*a
> is not handled. In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I would have expected simplify_rtx to eventually handle all interesting cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70477
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #10 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Created attachment 38144
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38144&action=edit
Tentative patch for VRP and loop-doloop
Meanwhile I found the time to implement a pattern for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70471
--- Comment #2 from Erik Schnetter ---
Compiler invocation with "-v" appended:
$
/Users/eschnett/src/spack/opt/spack/darwin-x86_64/gcc-4.2.1/gcc-5.3.0-j3ujojmhirf6t2mi5enfosb6545duy42/bin/g++
-fopenmp -march=native -std=gnu++11 -Ofast -S
ML_BSSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #10)
> Created attachment 38144 [details]
> Tentative patch for VRP and loop-doloop
>
> Meanwhile I found the time to implement a pattern for VRP which seems to do
> the job
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
So, we don't optimize at -O2
long foo (int a)
{
return (long)(a + 1) - 1;
}
Note that (T)(A +- CST1) +- CST2 -> (T)A +- CST3 thus the combined
addition in general needs to be done in the larger type _un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70292
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Maybe the ABI mandates these nevertheless.
Right, the ABI doesn't say anything about final classes. Note that the extra
symbol is only an alias; there aren't t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 38145
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38145&action=edit
patch
Attached patch seems to work OK on Linux and removes all string.h includes from
chkp-str* tests. I belie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is correct expectation, but the problem is that no pass that uses it
actually manages to update the insn.
As I said earlier, the combiner doesn't trigger, because there is just a single
insn, nothing to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:00:52 2016
New Revision: 234614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234614&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70460
* ira.c (indirect_jump_optimize)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63874
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> Sounds like this might be confusion between weak definitions and weak
> references. If we have a weak reference to the object, we cannot convert it
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:13:13 2016
New Revision: 234617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70460
* ira.c (indirect_jump_optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:21:43 2016
New Revision: 234618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70460
* ira.c (indirect_jump_optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
Bug ID: 70479
Summary: FMA is not reassociated causing x2 slowdown vs. ICC
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #0)
> Compile:
> GCC: g++ -march=haswell -Ofast -flto -fopenmp-simd -fpermissive m.cpp -o
> m.gcc
> ICC: icpc -O3 -ipo -fpermissive -xAVX2 -qopenmp m.cpp -o m.icc
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
You mean we fail to handle ternary associative tree codes in GIMPLE reassoc?
Yes, that's true. It's not going to be easy to retro-fit there
implementation-wise. With rebalancing you mean handling reassoc-w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
I benchmarked the patch in comment#17 with a full three-run on all_cpp
on a Haswell machine with -Ofast -march=native (peak is patched).
Estimated Es
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:50:15 2016
New Revision: 234620
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-15 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #11 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 13:55:36 2016
New Revision: 234622
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234622&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-15 Andrey Belevantse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmargetts at ocz dot com
--- Comm
Philippe Daouadi writes:
> I have been given these e-mail addresses by Nick Clifton after
> reporting a bug on binutils here:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19877 . The bug is in
> libiberty, according to him.
>
> The bug boils down to this command (and objdump, and lldb) crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:01:22 2016
New Revision: 234624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-15 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70479
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> You mean we fail to handle ternary associative tree codes in GIMPLE reassoc?
> Yes, that's true. It's not going to be easy to retro-fit there
> implementation-w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |6.0
--- Comment #15 from Ramana R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70184
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #3 from Julien Margetts ---
Are you suggesting you confirmed the patch associated with bug 62254 fixes this
issue?
As far as I can tell, in isolation at least, it does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:16:18 2016
New Revision: 234625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-21 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Patch applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2016-03/msg00740.html - just in case someone
wants a link to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70480
Bug ID: 70480
Summary: Reduce RTTI code bloat for specified types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #3)
> Are you suggesting you confirmed the patch associated with bug 62254 fixes
> this issue?
>
> As far as I can tell, in isolation at least, it does not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:29:15 2016
New Revision: 234626
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234626&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/70297
* c-decl.c (merge_decls): Also set TYPE_ALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] GCC|[5 Regression] GCC
|Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
Bug ID: 70481
Summary: [Regression] Libiberty Demangler segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70292
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tarasevich at cs dot
uni-saarland.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70292
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:37:08 2016
New Revision: 234627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70292
* gcc.c-torture/pr70292.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #5 from Julien Margetts ---
Yes, I applied both patches, and the test failure is still present, but on
closer inspection, it is no longer a segfault, but an internal compiler error:
The new assertion in the patch is firing:
gcc_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70476
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I haven't checked for other relevant rules in the standard, but Clang and EDG
give the same result as G++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69307
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Mar 31 14:50:57 2016
New Revision: 234629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-03-12 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fails at O0 in this case, I cannot type. I still think this is a tail from
PR62254 and that should just be reopened.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Akim Demaille changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #49 from Akim Demaille ---
It looks like this story is missing an end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70404
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38142|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
--- Comment #6 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:23:29 2016
New Revision: 234634
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234634&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/70453.
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md (define_mode_att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453
--- Comment #7 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:25:33 2016
New Revision: 234635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/70453.
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md (define_mode_att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:30:33 2016
New Revision: 234636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70393
* varasm.c (output_constructor_regular_fiel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
--- Comment #2 from Marcel Böhme ---
These are two distinct bugs. During fuzzing the btypevec bug appears more
often. But it seemed less critical since only NULL is written to the freed
memory:
work -> btypevec[ret] = NULL;
On the other hand, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70442
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Mar 31 15:37:12 2016
New Revision: 234637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/70442
* config/i386/i386.c (scalar_cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70442
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
