https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83705
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Oops.
>
> --cut here--
> diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
> index 970dd26..a9929f2 100644
> --- a/gcc/combine.c
> +++ b/gcc/combine.c
> @@ -11483,7 +11483
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84161
Bug ID: 84161
Summary: preprocessor should discard Fortran comments
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: prepro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84041
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Hmm, with the latest trunk and after upgrading to driver version 390.25,
for-3.exe passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84013
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, katsunori.kumatani at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84013
>
> --- Comment #2 from Katsunori Kumatani
> ---
> I'm not familiar with tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, andrewjenner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
>
> Andrew Jenner changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Tom,
That looks good. But maybe the REG_P check should be in the outer "if"?
Slightly easier and safer to exit as early as possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84162
Bug ID: 84162
Summary: Internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:13617 /
SEGFAULT
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84162
--- Comment #1 from Lukas Mosimann ---
The minimal example is already reduced a lot; until now, I wasn't able to track
the error down to an even smaller chunk of code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Darwin has its own ABI, and that is what those assembler routines are for.
This has nothing to do with this bug report; please use the mailing lists
for other questions/discussions/etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84005
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
With the current vect alignment computations, we end up using the alignment of
the arrays, so on x86_64 it's 256bits (DATA_ALIGNMENT bumps the alignment up)
and on ppc64 it's 32bits, no alignment bump.
Bac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> Hi Tom,
>
> That looks good.
Hi,
that patch was by Uros though.
> But maybe the REG_P check should be in the outer "if"?
> Slightly easier and safer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84162
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > That looks good.
> that patch was by Uros though.
Yes I misread. Uros: that patch is pre-approved.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> I'll do a build and test run with this patch (which in the case of the setup
> where I encountered the ICE means building host and accelerator compiler and
> runnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84151
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 1 10:08:26 2018
New Revision: 257284
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81661
PR tree-optimization/84117
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81661
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 1 10:08:26 2018
New Revision: 257284
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81661
PR tree-optimization/84117
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drohr at jwdt dot org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84163
Bug ID: 84163
Summary: [avr] Allow address space qualifier for compound
literals
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84163
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70129
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> I will try to look at it.
Do you see a chance to look at this before GCC 8?
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84161
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81661
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81661
Bug 81661 depends on bug 84117, which changed state.
Bug 84117 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gimplify_modify_expr, at
gimplify.c:5798
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Feb 1 11:02:52 2018
New Revision: 257285
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Tighten aarch64_secondary_reload condition (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83846
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Feb 1 11:04:58 2018
New Revision: 257290
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257290&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix SVE testsuite failures for ILP32 (PR 83846
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84161
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> It should not.
Well, why not?
If you say that the preprocessor is meant only for C/C++, then it shouldn't be
used with Fortran at all.
If one uses i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
The problem still exists, and according to gcc-testresults the test
FAILs on i386-pc-solaris2.11, x86_64-pc-solaris2.11,
x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0, i686-pc-linux-gnu, and x86_64-pc-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I've tested this on powerpc64-linux {-m64,-m32} as well (change_zero_ext
is pretty important for us; we have big testcases for this and related code).
No issues found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
CC|
ith-as=/usr/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-257290-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180201 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Feb 1 12:00:57 2018
New Revision: 257291
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257291&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 Bin Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
--- Comment #21 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Feb 1 12:00:57 2018
New Revision: 257291
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257291&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 Bin Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 1 12:07:46 2018
New Revision: 257292
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257292&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-01 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84164
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've just checked a x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.2 build: the test PASSes for
-m64, but FAILs for -m32 with
/var/folders/zz/zyxvpxvq6csfxvn_n87r00021y/T//cchNxmiW.s:7:no such
instruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77331
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84164
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We encounter an unrecognizable insn:
(insn 59 58 43 7 (set (reg:DI 124)
(rotatert:DI (reg:DI 125 [ c ])
(subreg:QI (and:SI (reg:SI 128)
(const_int 65535 [0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #12)
> I've just checked a x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.2 build: the test PASSes for
> -m64, but FAILs for -m32 with
>
> /var/folders/zz/zyxvpxvq6csfxvn_n000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84165
Bug ID: 84165
Summary: #define strlen asdf affects calls to asdf
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: prepr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84166
Bug ID: 84166
Summary: Wrong warning message emitted for loss of qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83370
--- Comment #1 from Renlin Li ---
Author: renlin
Date: Thu Feb 1 13:02:24 2018
New Revision: 257294
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257294&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR83370][AARCH64]Use tighter register constraint for sibcall patterns.
In a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83370
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84165
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #20 from Paul Thomas ---
A temporary fix:
Index: ../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-io.c
===
*** ../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-io.c (revision 257261)
--- ../trunk/gcc/fortran/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84155
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
A temporary fix:
Index: ../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-io.c
===
*** ../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-io.c (revision 257261)
--- ../trunk/gcc/fortran/tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84013
--- Comment #4 from Katsunori Kumatani ---
Thanks, it's quite useful in some "meta asm" cases (in conjunction with
plugins, asms can be useful since you can't add builtins). Or when doing custom
calls in asms (or syscalls, etc) and you know what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84167
Bug ID: 84167
Summary: bugzilla should have a "next bug" button
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> /var/folders/zz/zyxvpxvq6csfxvn_n87r00021y/T//cchNxmiW.s:7:no such
>> instruction: `shrx %eax, 4(%esp),%eax'
> http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/SARX:SHLX:SHRX.html
Could be a bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84164
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83370
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
>
> Could be a bug in the old Apple as. However, the testcase is fishy in
> explicitly passing -m16. For multilibbed x86 targets, that gets
> overridden for the non-default multilibs (either with -m32 or m64).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84168
Bug ID: 84168
Summary: Please backport "Avoid assembler warnings from AArch64
constructor/destructor priorities."
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As C++ now has standardized attributes, the question is what does the standard
say about whether standard attributes on a template are inherited to
specializations or not, and if the standard is fuzzy about i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> This shouldn't happen with degagnu after
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=dejagnu.git;a=commit;h=5256bd82343000c76bc0e48139003f90b6184347
Which would mean requiring at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
I have started with experiments on czerny. Set --param inline-min-speedup from
8 to 15 at 30th of January and to 30 yesterday.
Most of size regression comes away with 15 and I observed to off-noise
regressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #13 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Feb 1 14:17:07 2018
New Revision: 257296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257296&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use range info in split_constant_offset (PR 81635)
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81812
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
A similar error happens with the __builtin_vsx_udiv_2di() that happens with
__builtin_vsx_div_2di(), which shows the splitter for vsx_udiv_v2di calling
gen_udivdi3() directly:
[bergner@makalu-lp1 PR83926]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I actually think it is the right thing that the attributes from templates
> are inherited by specializations.
That cannot be correct. Because there is no way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83796
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Feb 1 15:36:04 2018
New Revision: 257298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-02-01 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/83796
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83796
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] Abstract |[6/7 Regression] Abstract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:45 PM, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> Jason, I'm only starting to look into it but if I understand your suggestion
> correctly, I don't think the bug can be fixed by relying on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> As C++ now has standardized attributes, the question is what does the
> standard say about whether standard attributes on a template are inherited
> to specializat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Feb 1 16:04:18 2018
New Revision: 257302
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257302&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/84157
* combine.c (change_zer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84157
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84128
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84128
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Feb 1 16:22:56 2018
New Revision: 257303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84128
* config/i386/i386.c (release_scratch_regis
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:
http://ymlptrack7.com/zwbctq
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I tested the modified C++ 11 example below with Clang, EDG, GCC, ICC, and MSVC.
Of these, only MSVC implements the behavior I expect and doesn't warn. The
others do. (I verified that MSVC does support the a
6_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
--with-ld=/usr/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-257303-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84166
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It's not confused. It's saying that it's type-safe to convert
"uint32_t **" to "volatile uint32_t *const *", but not to convert it to
"volatile uint32_t *".
http://c-faq.com/ansi/constmis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84089
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Thu Feb 1 17:12:28 2018
New Revision: 257304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84089
* config/pa/predicates.md (base14_operand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84170
Bug ID: 84170
Summary: std::find_if performance issues
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84089
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80899
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #6 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Just got a notification that it got assigned issue #180123.1:
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=180123.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84169
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84169
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Feb 1 18:26:51 2018
New Revision: 257305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56010
PR target/83743
* config/rs6000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Feb 1 18:26:51 2018
New Revision: 257305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56010
PR target/83743
* config/rs6000/
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
