https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70529
--- Comment #10 from Axel Naumann ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #9)
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> It's simply the case that if the 'p' or 'P' is followed by a digit, rather
> than by '+' or '-', t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
Bug ID: 70590
Summary: [6 Regression] r234810 causes error: location
references block not in block tree
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70591
Bug ID: 70591
Summary: add ability to use a fallback LANGUAGE variable
instead of primary language
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70529
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
pp-number:
digit
. digit
pp-number digit
pp-number identifier-nondigit
pp-number e sign
pp-number E sign
pp-number .
identifier-nondigit:
nondigit
universal-character-name
other implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70581
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70592
Bug ID: 70592
Summary: Addressing error in dynamically-allocated character
array
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70529
--- Comment #12 from Axel Naumann ---
Thanks for explaining, Jakub - I missed the identifier-nondigit.
Then it's really a matter of making the diagnostic more informative.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70579
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri Apr 8 08:31:40 2016
New Revision: 234823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234823&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/70579, PR testsuite/70580] Fix test cases failing beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70580
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri Apr 8 08:31:40 2016
New Revision: 234823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234823&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/70579, PR testsuite/70580] Fix test cases failing beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70593
Bug ID: 70593
Summary: [6 Regression] Miscompilation of xen starting with
r226901
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70579
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70580
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70593
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Simplified testcase:
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) unsigned long
foo (unsigned x)
{
unsigned long a, c = x;
asm volatile ("xorl\t%k1, %k1\n\tmovl\t$7, %k0"
: "=c" (c), "=a" (a) : "0"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #44 from Roger Orr ---
Created attachment 38218
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38218&action=edit
Intermediate file
I am as yet unable to upload the code for an example.
However, I've attached a file containing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68756
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
Bug ID: 70594
Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #45 from Roger Orr ---
While investigating the problem I am experiencing I have found it is stable
across g++ builds - I have tried a build using revision 234741 which has the
identical diagnostic output from the compilation.
However
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 8 09:39:44 2016
New Revision: 234825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/70566 Check that condition register is de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps a way to reduce this (though not as a -fcompare-debug failure) would be
to see if on the original testcase you get different code generation or
different -fdump-final-insns= dump between normal GC par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70593
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And there is another thing special on this testcase - a_6 has zero uses, so
isn't live.
If both the values would be live after the asm, there would be an conflict
added, even during the SSA_OP_DEF processing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70541
--- Comment #5 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Apr 8 10:46:13 2016
New Revision: 234827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-08 Maxim Ostapenko
PR sanitizer/70541
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70595
Bug ID: 70595
Summary: Cilk Plus testsuite needs massive cleanup
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70595
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70595
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 38219
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38219&action=edit
Initial patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37050|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70596
Bug ID: 70596
Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure with one extra
NOTE_INSN_DELETED
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #46 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I tried compiling this file, with C or C++, with or without -fpreprocessed, all
sorts of options including -std=c++14 -O3, and did not get a compilation
failure.
Can anyone else reproduce this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> location references block not in block tree generally means insufficient
> unsharing, where some function that got through gimple-low.c where
> TREE_SET_BLOCK has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68756
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Failure no longer reproducible after r232812, "new scop schedule for isl-0.15"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > location references block not in block tree generally means insufficient
> > unsharing, where some function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > > location references block not in block tree generally mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68756
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to vries from comment #5)
> Failure no longer reproducible after r232812, "new scop schedule for
> isl-0.15"
There are four snippets in this PR. All except the first one (snippet 1 from
#c0) are s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70498
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Apr 8 12:06:59 2016
New Revision: 234828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle an overflow case (PR70498, patch by Marcel Böhme).
PR c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70597
Bug ID: 70597
Summary: [6 Regression] cmd/go: deduplicate gccgo afiles by
package path, not *Package
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69687
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Apr 8 12:10:21 2016
New Revision: 234829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix memory allocation size overflows (PR69687, patch by Marcel Böhme)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69687
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70498
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #47 from Roger Orr ---
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm unfortunately not at present able to post the
whole source file.
The file I posted *only* contains the line directives, so people can confirm
whether there were any problems wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Without the testcase it is hard to guess.
> But one guess is that if in case of GC the cache is wiped and recreating it
> may create something -fcompare-debug car
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #48 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Try running cc1plus with valgrind to see whether that detects anything
untoward.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70577
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70577
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70598
Bug ID: 70598
Summary: Fortran OpenACC host_data construct ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: major
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70598
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70599
Bug ID: 70599
Summary: Crash when adding debug symbols to a program making
heavy use of nested templates.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70599
--- Comment #1 from Graeme ---
Created attachment 38223
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38223&action=edit
Pre-processed source file, gzipped to get around size limit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70588
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Jakub, feel free to remove the regression marker if you don't think it's
appropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70600
Bug ID: 70600
Summary: Missed tree optimization with multiple additions in
different types.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70592
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70586
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced :
// PR c++/70590
// { dg-options "-O2" }
int a;
constexpr int *
foo ()
{
return &a;
}
void blah (int *);
int
bar ()
{
blah (foo ());
}
int
baz ()
{
blah (foo ());
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 38225
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38225&action=edit
test.ii test case (g++ -O1 -fcompare-debug)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Without the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Which hunk do you want me to test?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> Which hunk do you want me to test?
The last one, sorry about the garbled message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> Created attachment 38225 [details]
> test.ii test case (g++ -O1 -fcompare-debug)
>
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > Without the testcase it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70588
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||16994
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> > Which hunk do you want me to test?
>
> The last one, sorry about the garbled message.
Firefox comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||afanfa at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70599
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70590
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> @@ -4143,6 +4143,12 @@ cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (tree t, bool
> allow_non_constant,
>
>verify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945
--- Comment #7 from Stefan Teleman ---
> Since Stefan hasn't followed up and I'm currently looking at other
> libcilkrts issues anyway, I'm taking over from here.
Had every intention to follow-up with a cleaned-up patch, but did not find
the tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70600
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70601
Bug ID: 70601
Summary: [OOP] ICE on procedure pointer component call
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 regression] SIGBUS on |SIGBUS on a VLA larger than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70601
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70588
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I agree that the SIZE_MAX/2 limit isn't very useful. A lower limit would be
more useful (I proposed one on the order of tens of kilobytes to megabytes in
my patch for bug 69517). Jason and I have been discu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #49 from Roger Orr ---
Alas, valgrind finds nothing untoward.
make MAKEINFO=true STAGE1_CXXFLAGS="-g -O0" clean-stage1
make MAKEINFO=true STAGE1_CXXFLAGS="-g -O0" all-stage1
valgrind /var/tmp/gcc-trunk-234481/build/gcc/cc1plus -fpre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70601
--- Comment #2 from zmi ---
and this one?
programtest
use concrete_type_module
implicit none
type(concrete_type), allocatable :: concrete
allocate(concrete)
call concrete % init()
call concrete % run()
end program test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39159
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I'm not an expert in this area but the approach seems reasonable to me. I
didn't test it in 5.x but with 6.0, it doesn't make a difference because
simple_cst_equal() cannot compare TREE_LISTs. Using attribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70601
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> and this one?
> ...
It gives
call concrete % run()
internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2256
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #50 from Bernd Schmidt ---
The 0xa5 bytes probably come from ggc-page, which tries to poison freed memory.
This does suggest that there's a use-after-free issue here.
At the step after "p map", try "watch -l map->to_file" followed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #51 from Roger Orr ---
Thanks, I hope to try that on Monday.
The function gets called multiple times, so I need to identify the last time.
The memory must have changed *during* the call to do_linemarker as the new_file
variable is se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70601
--- Comment #4 from zmi ---
ok, my fault)
ice on allocatable type only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #52 from Roger Orr ---
Ah - added print of *pfile->line_table at line 978 and compared with the value
when we error.
978 struct line_maps *line_table = pfile->line_table;
$3702 = {info_ordinary = {maps = 0x7fffec65d000, alloca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #53 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Hmm. Something got reallocated perhaps? It's not entirely obvious to me where
that would happen. Does the following help at all?
Index: directives.c
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65447
--- Comment #5 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:09:09 2016
New Revision: 234832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unify changes with Android's GCC 4.9 compiler.
Add the followin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66638
--- Comment #7 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:09:09 2016
New Revision: 234832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unify changes with Android's GCC 4.9 compiler.
Add the followin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #10 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:09:09 2016
New Revision: 234832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unify changes with Android's GCC 4.9 compiler.
Add the followi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64878
--- Comment #10 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:09:09 2016
New Revision: 234832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unify changes with Android's GCC 4.9 compiler.
Add the followi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #18 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:09:09 2016
New Revision: 234832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unify changes with Android's GCC 4.9 compiler.
Add the followi
/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160408 (experimental) [trunk revision 234826] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O0 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.3 -m32 -O1 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70574
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:21:17 2016
New Revision: 234833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70574
* fwprop.c (forward_propagate_an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #19 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is fixed now.
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
