Hi,
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:01:54, Yoey Ye wrote:
Sandra, Bernd,
Can you take a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734
It seems a siimple case still doesn't work as expected. Did I miss anything?
Thanks,
Joey
Yes,
this is a major case where the C++ memory model is
in
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 January 2014 14:42
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]
Well. We have
Loop 2 is simple:
simple exit
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, DJ Delorie wrote:
So... OK if __int20 and __int128 keywords exist always (for ports that
request them, which for __int128 would be all of them), but still be
unsupported if for some reason the port doesn't support them because
of command line options?
That seems
On 09/01/14 08:26, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:01:54, Yoey Ye wrote:
Sandra, Bernd,
Can you take a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734
It seems a siimple case still doesn't work as expected. Did I miss anything?
Thanks,
Joey
Yes,
this
Hi,
It was recently pointed out to me that our new powerpc64le-linux-gnu
target does not yet have a corresponding directory in libstdc
++-v3/config/abi/post/ to hold a baseline_symbols.txt for the platform.
I've been looking around and haven't found any documentation for how the
minimum baseline
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 January 2014 14:42
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
Subject: Re: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Paulo Matos
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140109 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140109/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi,
Here is a strange code snippet in gcc.bin in version 4.7.0:
00402e20 _ZL28if_exists_else_spec_functioniPPKc:
402e20: 31 c0 xor%eax,%eax
402e22: 83 ff 02cmp$0x2,%edi
402e25: 75 11 jne402e38
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM, xmeng xm...@cs.wisc.edu wrote:
Here is a strange code snippet in gcc.bin in version 4.7.0:
00402e20 _ZL28if_exists_else_spec_functioniPPKc:
402e20: 31 c0 xor%eax,%eax
402e22: 83 ff 02cmp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59724
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
Created attachment 31778 [details]
gcc49-pr59724.patch
Thanks, I have started native
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59576
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 9 09:21:02 2014
New Revision: 206460
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206460root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-09 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 31760 [details]
list_io.diff
The attached patch fixes the code in comment #1. I'm currently
doing the regtest.
The patch fixes the problem (at least
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #14)
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
I see, we should just short citcuit case when caller_freq
is 0. I will test patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59387
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
Unfortunately it triggers (sccp no longer optimizes) on quite a few
testcases:
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58277-1.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59735
Bug ID: 59735
Summary: code coverage options generate corrupted gcno file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59731
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59733
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59732
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
Hi,
this patch solves the testcase.
The first hunk gets rid of the redundant NOP_EXPR converting TRUTH_EXPR from
INT to BOOL. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59725
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Could the submitter and/or Daniel please provide the complete configure command
used to build GCC (e.g. from the output of 'gcc -v', this is supposed to be
part of any bug report, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to treeve from comment #0)
when gcc is built without gettext support, but gettext-
This was truncated, could the submitter also please clarify what was meant?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59385
--- Comment #6 from Julian Taylor jtaylor.debian at googlemail dot com ---
shouldn't -ffast-math enable -ffp-contract=fast?
also gcc 4.9 still documents -ffp-contract=fast as being the default while it
is apparently not anymore.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58026
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57042
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59736
Bug ID: 59736
Summary: ice with -O3 in cgraph_edge_brings_value_p
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59736
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #99 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 9 11:52:43 2014
New Revision: 206461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206461root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-09 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59737
Bug ID: 59737
Summary: ice from optimize_inline_calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems obviously correct, I don't know/remember if there was a reason stdout was
used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59738
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59738
Bug ID: 59738
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r206444 caused FAIL:
23_containers/vector/52591.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abensonca at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59430
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
This should be fixed now.
Indeed, works fine everywhere.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59433
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
Should be fixed now.
I'm seeing a massive improvement, but now some 32-bit tests that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59736
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58764
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59738
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #11 from Dâniel Fraga fragabr at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
Could the submitter and/or Daniel please provide the complete configure
command used to build GCC (e.g. from the output of 'gcc -v',
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59737
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
case INTEGER_TYPE: case ENUMERAL_TYPE: case BOOLEAN_TYPE:
case OFFSET_TYPE:
+ if (TREE_CODE (arg) == TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR)
+ return fold_build2_loc (loc,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59631
--- Comment #4 from bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bviyer
Date: Thu Jan 9 13:37:41 2014
New Revision: 206463
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206463root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix for PR c++/59631.
+++ gcc/cp/ChangeLog
+2014-01-09 Balaji V.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58026
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #7)
For the record: The code that I'm proposing to remove in comment 4 has been
added by Paul in r105913:
For PR24158 (ice-on-invalid-code), which was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59695
mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58026
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |
Summary|[4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59737
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58026
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further reduced test case for the error recovery:
type sysmtx_t
type(ext_complex_t), allocatable :: S(:)
end type
end
Trunk (and 4.4 - 4.8) yield:
c3.f90:3.40:
type(ext_complex_t),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59433
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
It seems this is a 32-bit issue: the failure is very fragile to
reproduce: I easily get it if running manually or under gdb, but it
vanishes if run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE|[4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59738
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin13 the error is
In file included from
/opt/gcc/build_w/x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0/i386/libstdc++-v3/include/vector:62:0,
from
at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't reproduce it with xg++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20140109 (experimental) configured
with --enable-checking=yes,rtl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59190
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A first step could be to teach alias analysis about BUILT_IN_ATOMIC_*,
currently it thinks i escapes in __atomic_add_fetch_4 (i._M_i, 1, 5).
Unrelated, but maybe those builtins could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Jan 9 15:18:55 2014
New Revision: 206466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206466root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54300
gcc:
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59738
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, I think it just needs to be reverted (at least for now).
Francois, unless you have a quick fix can you do that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54570
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 9 15:25:34 2014
New Revision: 206467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206467root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-09 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 9 15:25:34 2014
New Revision: 206467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206467root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-09 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59362
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 9 15:25:34 2014
New Revision: 206467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206467root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-09 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59733
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54570
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59733
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It doesn't matter which change triggered it, this looks like libsanitizer
internal error, it assumes no internal allocations will need to be large, but
apparently some are. So, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:29:42PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #3 from Steve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59524
--- Comment #1 from bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bviyer
Date: Thu Jan 9 15:41:20 2014
New Revision: 206468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206468root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix for PR testsuite/59524
2014-01-09 Balaji V. Iyer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:27:18AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59524
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
That said, during stage3 I'll look at how costly would be to use there
__atomic_load_n with MEMMODEL_RELAXED.
any
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59659
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59465
Viktor Ostashevskyi ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ostash
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59659
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31785
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31785action=edit
patch for the array initialization
Untested patch for the array initialization - if there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59739
Bug ID: 59739
Summary: missed optimization: attribute ((pure)) could be
honored more often
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59738
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe like this...
index 3638a8c..2cedd39 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
@@ -1433,7 +1433,8 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59094
--- Comment #4 from bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bviyer
Date: Thu Jan 9 16:52:23 2014
New Revision: 206469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206469root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix for PR bootstrap/59094
+2014-01-09 Balaji V. Iyer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Benson abensonca at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to janus from comment #10)
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
I don't see the point to keep this PR open in addition of pr54224 (only one
issue left
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59659
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59659
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For the #c0 testcase, I think reduced testcase is:
struct S { S (); S (int); ~S (); int i; };
struct A { S s[100]; };
void
foo ()
{
A a = {{}};
}
and in that case we don't go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57945
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59645
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59740
Bug ID: 59740
Summary: [C++11] ICE in create_tmp_var
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59740
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59659
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
For the #c0 testcase, I think reduced testcase is:
struct S { S (); S (int); ~S (); int i; };
struct A { S s[100]; };
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59740
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PR58501 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59713
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is a front-end issue, the temporary gets destroyed twice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59704
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58501
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59740
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58501
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59730
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Testcase added to mainline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59094
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59730
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 9 17:45:55 2014
New Revision: 206473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206473root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-09 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59713
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59713
--- Comment #3 from Victor Robertson victor.robertson.iv at gmail dot com ---
I was thinking that might be the case, I'll see if I can move the report to the
appropriate section.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59713
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wasn't going to change the component until we've definitely ruled out
libstdc++ ... I'll keep looking into it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59136
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 9 18:13:39 2014
New Revision: 206475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206475root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59136
libsanitizer/
*
1 - 100 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
