https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67058
Bug ID: 67058
Summary: Segmentation fault: 11 with = in lambda in c++11
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 29 15:42:03 2015
New Revision: 226355
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226355root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/66650
* libgfortran.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67052
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
The uses of the *nonnegative* functions should be removed to determine
what semantics are expected for for floating-point arguments.
If the semantics are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #4 from Henning Baldersheim bal...@yahoo-inc.com ---
Using the -fsanitize-undefined caused this error.
configretriever.cpp: info: running test suite 'configretriever.cpp'
/home/y/include/c++/5.2.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:76:2: runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67058
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
Implemented for GCC 6.
Suggestion for improvement, based on compiling Linux kernel.
3901 Wshift-overflow warning messages were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67010
Anders Granlund anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67052
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
(s/removed/reviewed/)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:12:28 2015
New Revision: 226357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226357root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/66650
* libgfortran.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:45:07 2015
New Revision: 226360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226360root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/66650
* libgfortran.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #35 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So it should be happening in dom2. On x86, input to dom2 is
vect_cst_.9_31 = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
[...]MEM[(int *)a] = vect_cst_.9_31;
[...]vect__13.3_20 = MEM[(int *)a];
resulting in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64403
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67035
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67060
Bug ID: 67060
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr56228.c (test for excess
errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64424
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67059
Bug ID: 67059
Summary: gfortran --version output is inconsistent with the
rest of GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64401
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67059
--- Comment #1 from Vedran Miletic rivanvx at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 36090
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36090action=edit
Patch
Output from git diff, hope this is OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55986
Shafik Yaghmour yaghmour.shafik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66808
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
Created attachment 35932 [details]
gzipped C++ source code
gcc trunk dated 20150707 does this
$ ../results/bin/gcc -c -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67058
--- Comment #2 from Lenjoy mars.lenjoy at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
This is an LLVM bug.
okay, filed https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66983
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, H.J., your patch has been integrated into the incremental patch in the
git branch aoliva/pr64164.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu ---
(In reply to ctice from comment #4)
Created attachment 36082 [details]
Tentative patch to fix this issue.
I believe the attached patch will fix this problem. I would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
Bug ID: 67063
Summary: segfault in opening a formatted file at second time
with status=replace
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #8)
Well we've decided not to do so...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2015-07/msg00083.html
Yes, I read that, that's why I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
Bug ID: 67061
Summary: sh64-elf: internal compiler error: in
sh_find_set_of_reg, at config/sh/sh-protos.h:235
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67049
--- Comment #2 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
My bad. Could you please try this patch?
That gets me through libgcc, but when I get to newlib I see bug 67061.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
Hm ..
for (result.insn = stepfunc (insn); result.insn != NULL_RTX;
previnsn = result.insn, result.insn = stepfunc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66217
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jul 30 02:34:09 2015
New Revision: 226378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226378root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66217
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jul 30 02:34:09 2015
New Revision: 226378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226378root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66217
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67038
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 03:29:00 2015
New Revision: 226380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226380root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/67038
* constraint.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67038
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #33 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66789
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Some observations:
glaubitz@z6:~/gcc-5-files sh4-linux-gnu-strip real_stage2.o
glaubitz@z6:~/gcc-5-files ls -l
total 800
-rw-r--r-- 1 glaubitz glaubitz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67051
Bug ID: 67051
Summary: symtab_node::equal_address_to too conservative?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
--- Comment #12 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is a bigger change to the code and we already have seen a few bugs it
caused. This means, that backporting will be a bigger effort and I don't
assume, that there will be much support on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66791
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67052
Bug ID: 67052
Summary: tree_single_nonnegative_warnv_p and
fold_relational_const are inconsistent with NaNs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67048
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
And here is the diff from the disassembly:
glaubitz@z6:~/gcc-5-files diff -u real*asm
--- real2.asm 2015-07-29 09:17:42.806123211 +0200
+++ real3.asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6)
And here is the diff from the disassembly:
A rare indeterminacy of the register choice. Both codes are valid.
It seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: trippels
Date: Wed Jul 29 06:32:09 2015
New Revision: 226338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226338root=gccview=rev
Log:
Use fast unwinder for PowerPC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
--- Comment #6 from Nicolai Stange nicstange at gmail dot com ---
Thank you for your clarifications, Andrew and Joseph.
As far as I am concerned, this bug can be marked as resolved/rejected/whatever
you like.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Mmmh, that seems to be because luid are not up-to-date. Running
df_recompute_luids before can_move_invariant_reg makes the issue go away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67050
Louis Dionne ldionne.2 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67050
Bug ID: 67050
Summary: [C++14] ICE when calling a template member function
from a lambda with implicit this capture
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Here are the files, copied as follows:
root@tirpitz:/home/glaubitz cd gcc-5-test_5.2.1-12/
root@tirpitz:..glaubitz/gcc-5-test_5.2.1-12 find . -name real.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 36085
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36085action=edit
gcc/real.o from different compiler stages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #20 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #19)
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #18)
I'm taking a look into this.
RFC here -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
karthik karthik.gottimukkala at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.3 |5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #3 from Henning Baldersheim bal...@yahoo-inc.com ---
Created attachment 36089
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36089action=edit
.s file
I also add the .s file that was generated with the -save-temps option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
updated patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02451.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Patch that rewrites GFC_DTYPE_SIZE_MASK definition to avoid left shift of
negative value warning:
--cut here--
Index: libgfortran.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047
--- Comment #5 from Anders Granlund anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
Yes you can verify that with
static_assert( std::is_samestd::underlying_typedecltype(x)::type,
unsigned __int128::value,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #4 from Henning Baldersheim bal...@yahoo-inc.com ---
If I use -O2 instead of -O3 it builds fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67053
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
--- Comment #4 from karthik karthik.gottimukkala at gmail dot com ---
Hi!
I am sorry, its my mistake.
I copy pasted the problem area and by mistake I pasted the wrong command with
version 4.7.3
My mistake! my bad!
Below is the script I used for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #21 from David Abdurachmanov david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com
---
I am on vacations now, but I already marked this on my TODO list. Once I find a
free time slot I will give it a spin. I will try to report in a few days.
BTW, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Argh, sorry, Markus. Thanks for fixing it up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #2 from Henning Baldersheim bal...@yahoo-inc.com ---
Created attachment 36088
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36088action=edit
the .ii file in gziped format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66975
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #1)
This ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02064.html ) patches
fixes the problem for operations that do not overflow, f.i. min and max.
Updated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67053
Bug ID: 67053
Summary: [6 Regression] AIL:
experimental/optional/constexpr/make_optional.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67053
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67054
Bug ID: 67054
Summary: Constructor inheritance with non-default constructible
members
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Bug ID: 67055
Summary: Segmentation fault in fold_builtin_alloca_with_align
in tree-ssa-ccp.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
--- Comment #5 from karthik karthik.gottimukkala at gmail dot com ---
Hi!
I am sorry, its my mistake.
I copy pasted the problem area and by mistake I pasted the wrong command with
version 4.7.3
My mistake! my bad!
Below is the script I used for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #8)
Maybe we can add gcc/real.o to the ignore list for the time being?
Not sure if this is a good idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, it started with r221040 aka PR bootstrap/65150 fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #5 from Henning Baldersheim bal...@yahoo-inc.com ---
Actually -fno-inline-functions was enough as a workaround. Then I can still use
the same general -O3 option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #7)
A rare indeterminacy of the register choice. Both codes are valid.
Ok, that's what I thought as well.
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60970
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 29 12:41:23 2015
New Revision: 226347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226347root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-29 Ville Voutilainen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 05:31:09 2015
New Revision: 226382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226382root=gccview=rev
Log:
DR 1558
PR c++/67021
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 05:27:34 2015
New Revision: 226381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226381root=gccview=rev
Log:
DR 1558
PR c++/67021
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
