https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, shiva0217 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
>
> --- Comment #17 from Shiva Chen ---
> Hi, Richard
>
> Thanks for the explanation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alan.hayward at arm dot com
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The core loop is
.L8:
addq$1, %rdx
vaddps (%r8), %ymm1, %ymm1
addq$32, %r8
cmpq%rdx, %rcx
ja .L8
which compared to LLVM is not unrolled. You can u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
Benda Xu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||heroxbd at sohu dot com
--- Comment #4 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71400
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71422
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Also, to help narrow it down, can you try it with this patch?
Index: tree-ssa-strlen.c
===
--- tree-ssa-strlen.c (revision 237069)
+++ tree-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71423
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The core loop is
>
> .L8:
> addq$1, %rdx
> vaddps (%r8), %ymm1, %ymm1
> addq$32, %r8
> cmpq%rdx, %rcx
> ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71417
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71418
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71426
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is just weird, I certainly do get ICE with 6.x, and while I don't with
5.x, I get the ICE at the 5.x branch point. So this really doesn't look like a
regression to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71418
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
While trying to package the patch in comment 5, I stumbled on the following
problem in 32 mode: the following code
MODULE Fruits
IMPLICIT NONE
PRIVATE
PUBLIC :: Get
CONTAINS
FUNCTION Get(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71417
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r236831.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399
--- Comment #4 from Ludovic Courtès ---
Created attachment 38650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38650&action=edit
Diff of one of the RTL phases between stage 2 and 3, gcc/real.c, GCC 5.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71416
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71190
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399
--- Comment #5 from Ludovic Courtès ---
I tried this time with GCC 5.4.0, and with BOOT_CFLAGS='-O2 -g0 -da'. I'm also
getting the failure:
make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/guix-build-gcc-5.4.0.drv-0/build'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11196
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yanp.bugz at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71329
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71418
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71329
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also Bug 51749
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399
--- Comment #6 from Ludovic Courtès ---
FWIW, we're bootstrapping from an ARM->ARM pseudo cross-compiler (same version,
that is 5.3.0 in the initial report, 5.4.0 in the latest report), along the
lines of:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ralphengels at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71298
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71419
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |documentation
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71407
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |alahay01 at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71430
Bug ID: 71430
Summary: Consider having different global std::locale object
per thread
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71426
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
"Reduced":
int f (int x[x - x ()]);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
Bug ID: 71431
Summary: ifstream::rdbuf directory
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71298
--- Comment #3 from ralphengels at gmail dot com
---
Sorry for the delay, yes its a duplicate of the same bug you linked to.
The msys2 devs have found a way to get around it which does not include
patching,
but i thought it best to report it any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71432
Bug ID: 71432
Summary: [7 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
This fixes the comparison failure on ia64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71433
Bug ID: 71433
Summary: [7 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
Dima Tisnek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, sorry, that was meant to be:
std::cout << f.fail() << f.bad() << '\n';
std::cout << ss.fail() << ss.bad() << '\n';
Which prints:
00
10
and I think that's correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
--- Comment #6 from Dima Tisnek ---
Perhaps in my case, it's a combination of directory, `imbue` and `rdbuf` ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
--- Comment #7 from Dima Tisnek ---
Ugh, it never occurred to me to check error on target of buffer copy.
`buf.rdstate()` does report an error for me.
A bit unexpected and seems like black magic, but the error is there :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
--- Comment #8 from Dima Tisnek ---
Looks like I cannot distinguish between a directory and an empty file:
```
buf << expression.rdbuf();
/* check buf.rdstate() */
```
underlying file name was a directory -- rdstate() == 4
underlying fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
--- Comment #4 from Yichao Yu ---
The C code is in the gist linked `a` is a cacheline aligned pointer and `n` is
1024 so `a` should even fits in L1d, which is 32kB on both processors I
benchmarked.
More precise timing (ns per loop)
6700K
```
%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71434
Bug ID: 71434
Summary: binomial_distribution operator(): using uninitialized
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71415
--- Comment #3 from Martin Ejdestig ---
> The semantics of exists(const path&, error_code&) are precisely specified,
> and > I think this behaviour is correct according to the specification. This
> is also > consistent with Boost.Filesystem.
O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71415
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Ejdestig from comment #3)
> Oh, OK. It seems odd to me that an error is signaled for something that
> should be considered "normal operations" though.
I agree.
> Is there some way for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71400
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24414
--- Comment #20 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jun 6 12:31:59 2016
New Revision: 237133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2016-06-06 Bernd Edlinger
PR c/24414
* cfgex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71415
--- Comment #5 from Martin Ejdestig ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> A new issue should get added to
> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html
Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
Bug ID: 71435
Summary: [7 regression] sparc bootstrap failure since r235625
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
Bug ID: 71436
Summary: [7 Regression] Segmentation fault in
arm_output_multireg_pop
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71432
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.1.0
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71433
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Here's a simple test case:
int t[1];
int fct (long e)
{
int d = 0, i, n = 52;
if (e < 0)
n += e;
for (i = 1 ; i < n / 64 + 1 ; i++)
d = t[i];
return d;
}
If I replace "long" by "int" in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The invalid mem-mem set rtx appears during reload. It transforms:
(insn 55 67 151 3 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 0 r0)
(mem/u/c:SI (reg/f:SI 147) [2 c+0 S4 A32]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399
--- Comment #7 from Ludovic Courtès ---
> I have attached the diff of stage[23]-gcc/real.c.192r.expand in the hope it
> would provide useful info.
The diffs are too noisy: due to '-gtoggle', we not only get "# DEBUG" comments
in stage2 dumps and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
I see sem_ch13__new_stream_subprogram__build_spec.9906 in stage3 calling memcmp
whereas it is inlined in stage2. That appears to be the only difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61564
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70830
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Jun 6 14:39:21 2016
New Revision: 237134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix fallout from: [ARM] PR target/70830: Avoid POP-{reglis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71433
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Well, this test case also yields a warning with 20160508-1 (trunk r236009).
Here's a new test case that yields no warnings with 20160508-1, but yields one
with 20160603-1 (r237077).
int t[1];
int a (void);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71404
--- Comment #10 from Bill Seurer ---
I checked on both powerpc64 BE and LE and indeed it runs now. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58987
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71400
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Jun 6 15:24:24 2016
New Revision: 237135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237135&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/71400
* libgcov-driver-system.c (__gcov_error_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71400
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Does this fix it (on both machines)?
Index: tree-ssa-strlen.c
===
--- tree-ssa-strlen.c (revision 237069)
+++ tree-ssa-strlen.c (working co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71320
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 6 15:50:01 2016
New Revision: 237136
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237136&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/71320 Add or remove file permissions correctly
PR libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37780
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Jun 6 15:59:48 2016
New Revision: 237138
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237138&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[1/3][ARM] Keep ctz expressions together until after reloa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71322
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71313
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37780
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Jun 6 16:01:47 2016
New Revision: 237139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237139&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[2/3][AArch64] Keep CTZ components together until after re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71320
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37780
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Jun 6 16:06:05 2016
New Revision: 237141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[3/3][RTL ifcvt] PR middle-end/37780: Conditional expressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Bug ID: 71437
Summary: [7 regression' Performance regression after r235817
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 38652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38652&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to be compiled with -O3 -m32 -ffast-math on x86-64.
: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160606 (experimental) [trunk revision 237117] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-6.1 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71259
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 6 18:35:03 2016
New Revision: 237147
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237147&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71259
* tree-vect-slp.c (vect_get_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
That fixes the comparison failure on ia64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71259
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 6 18:47:33 2016
New Revision: 237148
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237148&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71259
* tree-vect-slp.c (vect_get_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #7 from relliott at umn dot edu ---
Hello,
I just want to make one think certain. You quoted section 6.3.3.1 of the
J3/04-007 document to show that a NAMED local allocatable variable would be
deallocated at the end of a routine.
H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71259
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 06:51:16PM +, relliott at umn dot edu wrote:
>
> I just want to make one think certain. You quoted section 6.3.3.1 of the
> J3/04-007 document to show that a NAMED local allocatab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71330
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 6 19:48:22 2016
New Revision: 237151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70847
PR c++/71330
PR c++/71393
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 6 19:48:22 2016
New Revision: 237151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70847
PR c++/71330
PR c++/71393
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71393
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 6 19:48:22 2016
New Revision: 237151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70847
PR c++/71330
PR c++/71393
* c
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
