https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think that would be desirable. But probably not through trying to call
make_decl_rtl on those, we really should avoid creating RTL too early.
So, perhaps the checks need to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
True, fortran strings are not generally NULL terminated. However, for
internal representation between Frontend and library we try to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59167
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rene Koecher from comment #14)
I agree on your point here, however shouldn't an unchanged codebase (and
we're not using C++11 features or -std=c++11 yet) at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson e...@coeus-group.com ---
Created attachment 35267
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35267action=edit
preprocessed test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also:
(talos4)$ sh compile -fno-tree-sra
real0m52.668s
user0m52.365s
sys 0m0.348s
So it indeed looks like issue related to either vectorizer getting too fancy
with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 9 15:06:56 2015
New Revision: 221952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221952root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65690
* tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Apr 9 14:37:14 2015
New Revision: 221951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221951root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/65693
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #6 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #5)
(In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #0)
while a __sync full
barrier should block all movement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65720
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
N.B. there is no good reason to use -frepo in 2015.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Wahab matthew.wahab at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
(In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #7)
I agree that this wouldn't affect valid C11 code (because of data-races) but
my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have another idea in mind, however I see what your aiming for. I sense some
frustration over personal preferences and wording and such. There is no rush
here, since we have to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65671
--- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35272
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35272action=edit
Proposed patch
I am testing this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65676
--- Comment #5 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Apr 9 09:11:27 2015
New Revision: 221943
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221943root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65676
gcc/
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #17)
Actually it seems that the tester was used to test the change and it was
applied at
Nov 7, 2012 03:02 UTC
(Values: Base:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65712
Bug ID: 65712
Summary: pthread_self prints wrong result when used with
ucontext
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can't we diagnose this earlier during parsing and avoid making it
DECL_HARD_REGISTER in the first place?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46151
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you clear DECL_HARD_REGISTER the decl becomes is_gimple_reg and you are
expected to write it into SSA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #31 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #29)
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27)
Created attachment 35255 [details]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
--- Comment #2 from Terry Guo terry.guo at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
Needs confirming/reducing.
Working on reducing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35282
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35282action=edit
Preprocessed source for QImode subreg reload problem
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713
--- Comment #1 from Armin K. krejzi at email dot com ---
Created attachment 35275
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35275action=edit
gcc 5.0.0 snapshot output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713
--- Comment #2 from Armin K. krejzi at email dot com ---
Created attachment 35276
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35276action=edit
File used to produce the first two files
Two files are generated with gcc -E _mkerrcodes.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56852
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 9 19:37:57 2015
New Revision: 221955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221955root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-04-09 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you change:
4309 static void LZ4_copy8(void* dstPtr, const void* srcPtr)
4310 {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65718
Bug ID: 65718
Summary: g++.dg/lto/pr65276 FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65718
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56852
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to xur from comment #2)
Do you mean the result of 0 in g++ is intentional?
Yes.
But I'm not quite understand the relation with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. This
macro does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 9 20:11:44 2015
New Revision: 221960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221960root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65690
* tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65473
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But there's no such thing as a detection macro in the standard, so it's not
going to talk about where they belong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724
Bug ID: 65724
Summary: __builtin_object_size difference for C and C++
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65723
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is WONTFIX. If you use from=0, to=2 then it works fine, so use
those as the distribution parameters and then add 0x1p52 to the result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48891
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 9 19:51:08 2015
New Revision: 221958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221958root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65709
* ubsan.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58395
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For the program in comment 5 most of the difference in compile-time is caused
by the allocator-aware container requirements (additional constructors which
need to be instantiated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65676
Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
With spaces removed to be readable
1.11 ???3682: mov0x60(%rsp),%rdx
9.32 ???3687:?vmovss (%rax,%r12,2),%xmm5
1.44 ??? ??? vmovss (%rax),%xmm6
4.46 ???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65720
Bug ID: 65720
Summary: ICE with g++ 4.9.2 -frepo
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
--- Comment #8 from Federico Fissore federico at fsfe dot org ---
I forgot to say: this result came out of avr-gcc 4.8.1 (packaged by Arduino:
it's a 4.8.1 with two small patches applied [1]). It uses -Os optimization flag
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
For the program in comment 5 most of the difference in compile-time is
caused by the allocator-aware container requirements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65708
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #9)
I think all of the bits touching reload internals stems
from the non-existence of define_memory_constraint when
the port was first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724
--- Comment #2 from xur at google dot com ---
Do you mean the result of 0 in g++ is intentional?
But I'm not quite understand the relation with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. This
macro does not seem to be check in tree-objsz pass.
In other words, if I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65723
Bug ID: 65723
Summary: uniform_real_distribution isn't uniform.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65721
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65683
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Apr 9 19:42:24 2015
New Revision: 221957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221957root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-04-09 Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Apr 9 19:40:09 2015
New Revision: 221956
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221956root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-04-09 Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Wahab matthew.wahab at arm dot com ---
There is a difference between __syncs and __atomics, assuming the the __atomics
are meant to match the C11/C++11 memory model. With C11 atomics, a barrier for
an operation on an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
Bug ID: 65710
Summary: [5 Regression] Thumb1 ICE caused by no register to
spill
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
To me it seems like more inlining enales us to SRA array descriptor that in
turn enables vectorizer to vectorize differently and slow down the code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65717
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65717
Bug ID: 65717
Summary: 64-bit runtime FAILs with 32-bit compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW clang's output is more informative:
test.c:285:29: runtime error: load of misaligned address 0x7fe669eee001 for
type 'U64' (aka 'unsigned long'), which requires 8 byte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42172
Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65670
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #12)
I've generated the new version for powerpc-linux-gnu. I believe this needs
to be updated identically in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-none-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65722
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61217
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65671
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Apr 9 21:37:28 2015
New Revision: 221963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221963root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65671
gcc/
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Strenghtening the wrapper heuristics:
Index: ipa-inline.c
===
--- ipa-inline.c(revision 221909)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Has libgfortran been compiled with -fsanitize=address, or just the testcase?
Only the testcase for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Note that the patch in comment 6 also fixes this PR. It is probably the best
short term solution. Could it be committed for 5.1?
Results with this patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65691
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Apr 9 19:54:49 2015
New Revision: 221959
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221959root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR jit/65691: Fix copypaste error in docs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65670
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK. Yes, only new symbols except for those two rogue TLS symbols that I'll
remove.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Gianfranco costamagnagianfranco at yahoo dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
Federico Fissore federico at fsfe dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federico at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61795
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65723
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
I think this is WONTFIX. If you use from=0, to=2 then it works fine
... including the a = x b requirement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
Finally fixed upstream in
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/compiler-rt/commit/d09b23010698144d10cba0dacc5c599f230cbf62
. Does anyone have time to backport to GCC 5?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
this problem can also be triggered by a cross from x86_64-linux-gnu.
(gdb) f 1
#1 0x008d5315 in lra_constraints (first_p=true) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yann Collet from comment #9)
Looking at the assembler generated, we see that GCC generates a MOVDQA
instruction for it.
movdqa (%rdi,%rax,1),%xmm0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59766
--- Comment #9 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com ---
I didn't send it to gcc-patches. It's never been necessary for me before. I
suppose I can collect the examples here into a testcase file. In the meantime,
anyone else is free to take
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Bug ID: 65714
Summary: shared_ptrvoid::reset(p) blows a static_assertion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65704
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35273
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35273action=edit
something like this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
Ludovic Courtès ludo at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ludo at gnu dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713
Bug ID: 65713
Summary: C Preprocessor generates invalid output
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 9 13:37:53 2015
New Revision: 221949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221949root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-04-09 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65716
Bug ID: 65716
Summary: Integral promotion wrong with arm version
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Apr 9 18:30:34 2015
New Revision: 221954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221954root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65554
* gimple-fold.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #11 from Matthew Wahab matthew.wahab at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #10)
(In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #7)
Ok, my point was just that an __sync operation has a stronger barrier that
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65691
David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
