On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
Say you have a pointer:
int *p;
and an inline asm that writes to a block of memory
__asm__(\t0:\n
\tstr wzr, [%2, #4]!\n
\tsub %1, %1, #1\n
\tcbnz %1, 0b\n
: =m(*p), +r(len) :
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Anthony Green gr...@moxielogic.com wrote:
Have you considered doing this through custom GNU linker relaxation
work? I would try this before hacking away at the compiler.
AG
This a very good idea indeed, I wasn't aware of this feature.
I will give it a try
On 02/26/2014 10:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
But yes, technically you write p[0] here but as m merely builds
an address to the memory I'd say that we have to treat any m
operand as possibly reading from / writing to / clobbering the
whole object that can be refered to using that address.
I
On 02/26/2014 12:24 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
An additional question that immediately pops up here is that
of TBAA - may we use the alias-set of the memory reference
to disambiguate other loads/stores against the asm?
I would certainly hope so: I don't think the rule here should be any
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:35:37PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But I'm pretty sure that any compiler guy must *hate* that current odd
dependency-generation part, and if I was a
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This needs to be as follows:
[[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]])
{
return i - i;
}
Otherwise dependencies won't get carried through it.
Hi,
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
\tstr wzr, [%2, #4]!\n
\tsub %1, %1, #1\n
\tcbnz %1, 0b\n
: =m(*p), +r(len) : r(p));
I presume this is wrong because *p only refers to p[0]. Is it
possible to tell GCC that the asm writes to the
Michael Matz m...@suse.de writes:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
\tstr wzr, [%2, #4]!\n
\tsub %1, %1, #1\n
\tcbnz %1, 0b\n
: =m(*p), +r(len) : r(p));
I presume this is wrong because *p only refers to p[0]. Is it
possible to tell
FWIW:
__asm__(\t0:\n
\tstr wzr, [%2, #4]!\n
\tsub %1, %1, #1\n
\tcbnz %1, 0b\n
: =m(*p), +r(len) : r(p));
+r(p) as well, you're modifying %2.
Cheers,
Segher
On 02/26/2014 04:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
+r(p) as well, you're modifying %2.
Yes, yes, OK. :-)
Andrew.
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
So, let me try to poke holes into your definition or increase my
understanding :) . You said chain of pointers(dereferences I assume),
e.g. if p is result of consume
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:28 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:55:50PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
To me that reads like
int i;
int *q = i;
int **p = q;
atomic_XXX (p, CONSUME);
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:04:30PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140226130517.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:35:37PM +0100, Michael Matz
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This needs to be as follows:
[[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]])
{
return i - i;
}
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 18:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 22:10 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This needs to be as follows:
[[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i
Hello,
I'm wondering if it's a good idea to turn on some warnings by default
(or even promote them to error), such as -Wreturn-type on C. This
would help programmers to avoid some mistakes.
Regards,
Mingjie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60337
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
With -O2 and -O3 all three cases generate the proper alignment
With -O1 only foo() has the proper alignment
With -O0 none of the cases has the proper alignment
== Code compiled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.2 |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60327
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 26 08:39:48 2014
New Revision: 208167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208167root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-26 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60342
Bug ID: 60342
Summary: -Wsign-conversion ignores explicit conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
Bug ID: 60343
Summary: r208155 breaks bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #8)
FWIW, I think the error is in the caller of move_block_to_reg.
move_block_to_reg can make use of a load_multiple instruction, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60327
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
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=52015
--- Comment #36 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Roman from comment #35)
Tried to apply proposed patch for MinGW 4.8.1 and received no positive
effect. Compiler tells about error : 'stoi' was not declared in this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Following patch works for me:
--cut here--
Index: lra-assigns.c
===
--- lra-assigns.c (revision 208168)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60340
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not sure that -fcheck-data-deps has been kept up-to-date enough to be
useful ... (and the omega result looks bogus)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
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=60344
Bug ID: 60344
Summary: [C++1y] 7.1.6.4/13 not enforced
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 26 10:29:04 2014
New Revision: 208170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208170root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-26 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60317
Bug 60317 depends on bug 60343, which changed state.
Bug 60343 Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208155 breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
Bug ID: 60345
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208159 cause Firefox build error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32218
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32218action=edit
unreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
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=60345
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
markus@x4 src % cat test.ii
class A {};
template typename T class Handle : A {
public:
operator T ();
};
class JSAtom {};
class PropertyName : public JSAtom {};
template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
markus@x4 src % cat test.ii
template typename T struct A {
operator T ();
};
class C {};
class J : public C {};
template typename K struct F {
void m_fn1(const K );
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
I have another test case, available on request.
Still going wrong.
From the gcc test suite, g++.old-deja/g++.jason/thunk1.C
is fine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
template typename T struct A {
operator T ();
};
struct C {};
struct J : C {};
void f(C* const);
void g(AJ * p2) {
f(p2);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
struct C {};
struct J : C {};
struct A {
operator J* ();
};
A p;
C* const q = p;
(I'll stop there ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #18 from Jon Beniston jon at beniston dot com ---
Thanks, this seems to fix the LM32 port.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 16:48:22 2014
New Revision: 208175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208175root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60345
Revert:
DR 1571
* call.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 16:51:14 2014
New Revision: 208176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208176root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60345
* g++.dg/conversion/ref1.C: New.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 17:01:12 2014
New Revision: 208177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208177root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60182
* pt.c (unify): Ignore alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|va_start corrupts 6-th |empty struct value is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54440
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 17:08:20 2014
New Revision: 208178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208178root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/54440
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54440
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56427
Bug 56427 depends on bug 54440, which changed state.
Bug 54440 Summary: [c++11] g++ prematurely applying rule that a template
parameter pack cannot be followed by a template parameter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54440
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59223
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59223
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60294
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
It is a target bug if it is passing on the stack. Note in C++, the size of
the struct is 1 while in C, the size is 0.
Changing the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
Can someone try this on non-x86 targets?
I get abort on alpha:
$ gcc -c fun.i
$ gcc -c x.ii
$ g++ fun.o x.o
$ ./a.out
Aborted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
Is this test valid? BTW, clang works fine on x86.
No this testcase is not valid at all. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59570
Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
This works:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 00773d8..16669b9 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -7193,6 +7193,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Bug ID: 60347
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208152 breaks Firefox build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32219
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32219action=edit
Unreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #9 from vagran vagran.ast at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
Is this test valid? BTW, clang works fine on x86.
No this testcase is not valid at all. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60349
Bug ID: 60349
Summary: Any call to expq (or libquadmath function that might
possibly call expq) segfaults in mingw-gcc.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
Bug ID: 60348
Summary: -static-libstdc++ broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vagran from comment #9)
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
Is this test valid? BTW, clang works fine on x86.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
This patch may be better:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 00773d8..426146a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -6842,7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] r208152|[4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:15:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The workaround should be obvious, but just encase
Reduced testcase
subroutine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is a bit alarming that gcc, clang and clang++ use one ABI and g++ uses a
different (inferior) one (the incompatibility with clang++ should affect some
standard library functions,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Denis Kolesnik denis.v.koles...@safe-mail.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Passing
struct dummy { };
is still odd for g++. It is supposed to have a single member of type char,
which should be passed in register, not on stack.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
Passing
struct dummy { };
is still odd for g++. It is supposed to have a single member of type char,
which should be passed in register,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55113
--- Comment #13 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
If double_type_node is FE dependent then it needs treatment in
tree-streamer.c:preload_common_nodes:
static void
preload_common_nodes (struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57636
--- Comment #5 from Jon Beniston jon at beniston dot com ---
It's worth trying the fix posted for bug 57232.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #16 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:16:15 2014
New Revision: 208182
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208182root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-26 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14710
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57132
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11586
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:32:41 2014
New Revision: 208184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208184root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60347
PR lto/53808
* class.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:32:41 2014
New Revision: 208184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208184root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60347
PR lto/53808
* class.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30301
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30301
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30301
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:44:48 2014
New Revision: 208185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208185root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/30301
* g++.dg/parse/unnamed2.C: New.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58648
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59066
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57935
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:57:40 2014
New Revision: 208186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208186root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/57935
* reload1.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57936
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:38:57PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Looks like an unguarded union access.
This is a regression from the time there was now
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
