https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80582
--- Comment #2 from Yulia Koval ---
This is fixed on trunk:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=23f05e90ea5b60b676c69f5bf481bfd6c3a90160
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80582
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
--- Comment #6 from Jos de Kloe ---
Thanks for your test results and views on this matter.
> (1) PARAMETER has a very precise definition in Fortran and AFAICT this
> definition (named constants) does not match your use in the above quotation.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 15 07:53:37 2017
New Revision: 248047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-15 Richard Biener
Revert backport of
PR mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 15 07:56:00 2017
New Revision: 248048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248048&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-15 Richard Biener
Revert backport of
PR mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80554
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tamas Bela Feher from comment #0)
> Created attachment 41281 [details]
> submodule redefines a variable from the ancestor module
>
> Dear GFortran team,
>
> In the attached program, module M and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80554
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80645
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
> I'm not able to reproduce the warning mentioned in comment #1 either with a
> native x86_64 compiler (-m32 or -m64), or with the cross-compilers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80752
Bug ID: 80752
Summary: ICE with wrong type initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80743
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips-sde-elf
--- Comment #1 from Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80753
Bug ID: 80753
Summary: __has_include and __has_include_next taints subsequent
I/O errors
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80753
--- Comment #1 from Pekka S ---
Created attachment 41357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41357&action=edit
__has_include_next testcase on a non-existent file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Nowadays C has atomics and fences in the language standard, so it doesn't
matter if x() had
asm volatile("":::"memory");
or
__atomic_{signal,thread}_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQ_REL);
or
return __atomic_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80754
Bug ID: 80754
Summary: invalid smull instructions generated after r247881
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80755
Bug ID: 80755
Summary: __has_include_next: internal compiler error: NULL
directory in find_file
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80755
--- Comment #1 from Pekka S ---
Created attachment 41359
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41359&action=edit
trips __has_include_next. must be placed under last-include-dir/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27214
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> The desired cleanup is to make POINTER_PLUS_EXPR take a signed offset
> argument,
> aka ssizetype instead of sizetype.
>
> Bin was working on this a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80743
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Similar bug was mitigated recently.
Presumably you mean 80597, which was all about floating point rounding.
This bug looks different to me. The relevant lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80425
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> Looks like RA issue.
A related problem is shown with:
extern int a;
__m512i
f1 (__m512i x)
{
return _mm512_srai_epi32 (x, a);
}
compiled with -O2 -mavx512f:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 May 2017, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
>
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Nowadays C has atomics and fences in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80743
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Fault seems to be between revision 247334 and 247438.
Continuing bisection search.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80756
Bug ID: 80756
Summary: missing diagnostic on non-constant expression with
function call such as fabs or fma in initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80743
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Further analysis shows fault is between revision 247412 and 247425
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80757
Bug ID: 80757
Summary: Internal compiler error when omitting upper subscript
of a character substring in a module subroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80756
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
The cause seems to be that the functions are builtins:
$ gcc-snapshot -std=c99 -c tst-cst.c
tst-cst.c: In function 'f':
tst-cst.c:7:21: error: initializer element is not constant
static double x = fabs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80743
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80756
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #1)
> The cause seems to be that the functions are builtins:
>
> $ gcc-snapshot -std=c99 -c tst-cst.c
[...]
Oops, incomplete copy-paste. It should have been:
$ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80758
Bug ID: 80758
Summary: isnan/isfinite/isinf value propagation
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Bug ID: 80759
Summary: gcc.target/x86_64/abi/ms-sysv FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80758
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2017-5-15
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80659
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80742
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80743
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80746
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80760
Bug ID: 80760
Summary: Suggested clarification of an error message
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67147
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80752
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80757
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31468
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon May 15 12:48:35 2017
New Revision: 248060
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248060&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not allow empty argument of -o option (PR driver/31468).
2017-05-15 M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
Bug ID: 80761
Summary: std::set::insert_return_type uses wrong
iterator type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
ipa-reference.c has:
/* Set of all interesting module statics. A bit is set for every module
static we are considering. This is added to the local info when asm
code is found that clobbers all me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80760
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 May 2017, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
>
> --- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
> ipa-reference.c has:
>
> /* Set of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(and the order of the structure members is also wrong)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80756
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80730
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 13 May 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I don't see what purpose rejecting
>
> bool b = "";
>
> serves when
>
> bool b = !!"";
>
> or even
>
> bool b = "" ? 1 : 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31468
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80756
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #3)
> fabs and fma identifiers are reserved for the implementation and it is valid
> to treat them as constant expression in initializers based on c99 6.6p10
Well, if is incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79850
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79849
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80756
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 15 May 2017, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> GCC misses a diagnostic when the fabs() or fma() function is used in an
> initializer. For instance, consider:
There are pedwarns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80735
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80756
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 15 May 2017, nsz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> fabs and fma identifiers are reserved for the implementation and it is valid
> to
> treat them as constant expression in initializers ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 15 13:47:40 2017
New Revision: 248062
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248062&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix order and types of members in C++17 insert_return_type structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80754
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 15 14:01:38 2017
New Revision: 248063
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248063&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix order and types of members in C++17 insert_return_type structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Bug ID: 80762
Summary: is_constructible gives hard
error with clang
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
You still around, Steven?
I cannot say I missed you.
Nobody asked me to apply those fixes, I imagined that Tobias Burnus,
their author,
would try them and eventually apply them.
It seems that it did not ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
I think a possible approach is to add a new cgraph_node flag (or a multi-bit
field, if we want to track presence of acquire/release/seq-cst compiler
barriers separately), handle asms and atomics specially
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
Bug ID: 80763
Summary: -O3 causes error: inline clone in same comdat group
list
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Here is the reduced code
struct b {
virtual ~b();
};
struct c {
virtual unsigned d(unsigned, unsigned);
virtual unsigned f(unsigned, unsigned, unsigned, unsigned) = 0;
};
template class i : e, c {
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
>The problem seems to exist between revisions 247438 and 247811.
>I'll have a go at trying to reduce that range.
I'm wrong with my range of revisions. Problem now seems to exist sometime
before revision 2
20170515 (experimental) [trunk revision 248042] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1.part.0’:
small.c:12:1: error: size of loop 9 should be 6, not 7
}
^
small.c:12:1: error: loop 10’s latch does not have an edge to its header
small.c:12:1: internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80765
Bug ID: 80765
Summary: [8 Regression] 178.galgel in SPEC CPU 2000 fails to
run
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80659
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Marek, can you please take a look why the VAR_DECL built from the expr_stmt
> is not assigned in a BIND_EXPR?
In C, non-static compound literals aren't pushed int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On May 15, 2017 4:43:04 PM GMT+02:00, "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80728
>
>--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
>I think a possible app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:27:04PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
> You still around, Steven?
> I cannot say I missed you.
I've never left, and you're more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80766
Bug ID: 80766
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE with type bound procedures
returning an array
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80767
Bug ID: 80767
Summary: Eager instantiation of member template when not
required
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
This ought to fix both problems:
--- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
@@ -10443,6 +10443,7 @@ tree
c_process_expr_stmt (location_t loc, tree expr)
{
tree exprv;
+ tree orig_expr = expr;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Problem now seems to be between revision 236947 and 236961.
Continuing the search.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Well, that's not quite right because of e.g. unevaluated || operand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80737
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #3)
> (In reply to TC from comment #1)
> > Looks like the constraint on the convert-everything constructor needs to
> > check for is_same, variant> first and short circuit if that's
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80766
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80605
--- Comment #8 from Ed Catmur ---
Looks to have been fixed by r247816.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80730
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I"m not sure I understand what you're saying. Your comment that "the
initializer *as
converted* must be a constant expression (and, thus, to be an address
constant, must be of pointer type)" makes it sound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80768
Bug ID: 80768
Summary: NULL pointer dereferenced in gfc_check_num_images at
fortran/check.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #13 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Steve, you know why I do not like you.
If you are so sensitive please take care of the sensitivity of people
submitting bugs
and do not call them "idiot".
But this is not relevant here.
What is relevant is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 04:57:37PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
>
> --- Comment #13 from Vittorio Zecca ---
> Steve, you know why I do not like y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80747
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Zhangwen,
That patch looks correct. The explanation maybe not: the problem happens
if the earliest "end" is the entry block itself, not a real BB (that is,
if we start the function with a newly inse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80741
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
On Mon, 15 May 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80730
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
> I"m not sure I understand what you're saying. Your comment that "the
> initializer *as
> converted* must be a constant expression (and, thus, to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80730
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 15 May 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80730
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
> I"m not sure I understand what you're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80752
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> It seems to me that ms-sysv.exp is seriously misguided in trying to do all
> its compilations manually instead of using
> dg-test/dg-runtest/gcc_target_compile
> wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80754
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80752
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 05:57:38PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Here's two possible patches.
>
Here's a 3rd possible patch, and it appears to do
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
