https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70559
Bug ID: 70559
Summary: Miscompilation of nsTextFormatter.cpp from Firefox
with -Os -fomit-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70559
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70559
--- Comment #2 from Mike Hommey ---
Created attachment 38198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38198&action=edit
nsTextFormatter.ii
Err, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 07:45:34 2016
New Revision: 234772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 07:45:34 2016
New Revision: 234772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70430
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 07:45:34 2016
New Revision: 234772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70424
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 07:51:19 2016
New Revision: 234773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70115
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 07:51:19 2016
New Revision: 234773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70022
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 07:51:19 2016
New Revision: 234773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70115
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68963
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 07:57:47 2016
New Revision: 234774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69983
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 08:09:40 2016
New Revision: 234775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
Qingshan Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qshanz at cn dot ibm.com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69760
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 08:09:40 2016
New Revision: 234775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
--- Comment #9 from Qingshan Zhang ---
Or do we have any work round for this issue ? Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38194|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43207
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #21 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #19)
> (In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #17)
> > The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
> > 70362)
> >
> > arm-non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55427
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59093
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 38200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38200&action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
Malcolm Parsons changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||malcolm.parsons at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Malcolm Parsons from comment #9)
> Created attachment 38201 [details]
> fix undefined behaviour in stl_tree.h
>
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> > I believe all the real prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
But unfortunately that patch fixes Comment 3 but not the original testcase...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70177
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 10:31:27 2016
New Revision: 234776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234776&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
--- Comment #11 from Malcolm Parsons ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> > The attached patch fixes it for me.
>
> That seems to be a backport of r223746 from trunk, right? I'll look into
> applying that to the gcc-5 branch.
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70560
Bug ID: 70560
Summary: Review configure checks for _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS
and atomicity_dir
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60290
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.1[01] |i386-pc-solaris2.1[012]
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70561
Bug ID: 70561
Summary: Crash in recog_for_combine_1
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70561
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
P.S.:
(gdb) p debug_rtx(pat)
(set (reg:SI 67 [+4 ])
(and:SI (not:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 65 [ b+-4 ]) 4))
(mem:SI (plus:DI (reg:DI 2 %r2 [ a ])
(const_int 4 [0x4])) [1 *a_2(D)+4 S4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
I've reproduced it too with our latest 4.8, and I confirm it compiles OK with
the very first commit in branch 4.9.
Since you switched to 4.9, I will not investigate more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70561
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
(Ah, probably add_clobbers should have added the clobber, but it hasn't. It
doesn't have any code for that pattern.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
--- Comment #4 from Albert Cahalan ---
Mostly it's more like PR58741 because of the long long issue.
PR22141 (and PR23684 which is a better match) is about merging small things.
Two of the six examples here show that problem, those being the one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 6 12:42:24 2016
New Revision: 234779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/70550
* tree.h (OMP_CLAUSE_FIRSTPRIVATE_IMPL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39159
Gert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gw.fossdev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
The libstdc++ build process was updated to recognize LTS symbols. Please use
GCC 5.3 or later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
--- Comment #5 from Albert Cahalan ---
This example shows the most simple form of the problem:
unsigned long long ull;
void simple64(void){
ull = 0;
}
NOTE: In the assembly below, I might have missing/excess parentheses. Assembler
synta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55427
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|dominiq at lps dot ens.fr |
--- Comment #4 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39159
--- Comment #6 from Gert ---
I forgot to mention: the patch is against 5.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In that case it is a backend enhancement request. Backends have many ways how
to deal with this, starting from specialized patterns, or using the lower
subreg passes, using their own splitters etc. and many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70562
Bug ID: 70562
Summary: User defined assignment does not distinguish between
ranks
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70561
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60853
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||baradi09 at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70562
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55427
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org |cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70559
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #4 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Thanks for having a look at this, Richard .
Yes, "some weirdness" is definitely going on -
but I'd like to determine precisely which "weirdness".
This occurred when building my new LFS system's system com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
--- Comment #9 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch I posted for PR70289 a couple of days ago also resolves this issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00202.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70559
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems this got fixed (or is dup of) PR64905, r220416 in particular, but you
want r220414 and r220441 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68159
Paul Brannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||curlypaul924 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70501
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00191.html
but read the thread for why that's not the best patch. Continuing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70543
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47040
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch submitted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-04/msg00024.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that the following test compiles with gfortran from at least 4.8 up to
trunk (6.0)
PROGRAM ReadMeTwo
IMPLICIT NONE
CHARACTER(10) :: var
READ '('//'A)', var
PRINT *, var
END PROGRAM Read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #6 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Yes, Jakub, thanks, I know :
> If you link with g++ or xg++ instead of gcc or xgcc, then the driver is
> adding
> -lstdc++ automatically.
But it is not ME linking, it is the gcc-5.3.0 Makefile.in / config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63336
Yves Vandriessche changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yves.vandriessche at intel dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70563
Bug ID: 70563
Summary: SFINEA fails when trying invalid template
instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70398
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Apr 6 16:48:36 2016
New Revision: 234792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-06 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/70398
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, both options sounds quite involved. Perhaps for stage4 we can simply drop
the sanity check and add yet another FIXME to the verifier? Alias.c is
relatively robust about walking to main variants so I can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #7 from Jason Vas Dias ---
So since I've produced a working Stage3 compiler in the build directory, './',
'./prev-gcc' should be the directory containing the Stage2 gcc build, and
it does in my case, with a config.log :
$ grep '^LDF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Where do you see -nostdlib being used? I see it neither in your #c0, nor in
#c1.
Looking at my buildlog, -nostdlib is used to link only some libraries, like
libstdc++.so.6 itself, or libvtv, libsanitizer lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #9 from Jason Vas Dias ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Where do you see -nostdlib being used? I see it neither in your #c0, nor in
> #c1.
> Looking at my buildlog, -nostdlib is used to link only some libraries, like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70564
Bug ID: 70564
Summary: Problem with std::experimental::not_fn
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Vas Dias from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > Where do you see -nostdlib being used? I see it neither in your #c0, nor in
> > #c1.
> > Looking at my buildlog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70565
Bug ID: 70565
Summary: ICE at gimplify.c:8832 (cilkplus array extension)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70565
--- Comment #1 from Yves Vandriessche ---
Additionally, the same internal compile error is produced when substituting:
> cilk_for ( int row = 0; row < nrows; row++ ) {
with
>#pragma omp parallel scheduler(dynamic, 256)
> for ( int row = 0; r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69391
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:35:16 2016
New Revision: 234794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/61817
PR preprocessor/69391
* internal.h (_cpp_builti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:35:16 2016
New Revision: 234794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/61817
PR preprocessor/69391
* internal.h (_cpp_builti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
Bug 60723 depends on bug 61817, which changed state.
Bug 61817 Summary: Inconsistent location of tokens in the expansion list of a
built-in macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69391
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Summary|[5/6 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566
Bug ID: 70566
Summary: Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int
bitfield value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Drake ---
Created attachment 38205
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38205&action=edit
other.c test case source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Drake ---
Created attachment 38206
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38206&action=edit
main.i preprocessed output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
--- Comment #6 from Ian Harvey ---
The code in #5 is missing the initial parenthesised expression that exposes the
flaw in parsing logic - the left hand operand of the string concatenation needs
to be `('(')`, and not just the string literal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The code in #5 is missing the initial parenthesised expression that exposes
> the flaw in parsing logic - the left hand operand of the string concatenation
> needs to be `('(')`, and not just the str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52884
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I am planning to submit the following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/invoke.texi 2016-03-13 09:07:16.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/invoke.texi 2016-04-06 20:44:26.0 +0200
@@ -361,9 +3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67039
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I am planning to submit the following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi2016-01-04 19:51:09.0
+0100
+++ gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi 2016-04-06 17:15:01.0 +0200
@@ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70567
--- Comment #1 from baoshan ---
This issue is seen from 4.8 to 5.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70567
Bug ID: 70567
Summary: internal compiler error: in retrieve_specialization,
at cp/pt.c:1020
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Apr 6 23:07:21 2016
New Revision: 234801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix new -Wparentheses warnings encountered during bootstrap
gcc/ChangeL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Apr 6 23:10:14 2016
New Revision: 234802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix C++ side of PR c/70436 (missing -Wparentheses warnings)
gcc/cp/Chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38207
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38207&action=edit
demonstrator patch
In add_pdr_constraints, for the EXTRADIM=0 case we have:
...
accesses: { S_4[i1, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #5)
> The patch changes the order of the subscript functions
Oops, that's accesses, actually.
> (that was the easiest
> for me to implement) to:
> [alias set, fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
Bug ID: 70568
Summary: PowerPC64: union of floating and fixed doesn't use
POWER8 GPR/VSR moves
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
sradi, that is.
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
