http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32357
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32357&action=edit
Second half of test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32356
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32356&action=edit
First half of test case
Sorry, have to split the test case into two pieces; please catenate to
reproduce.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Sat Mar 15 03:24:11 2014
New Revision: 208587
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208587&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/60525
* config/i386/i386.md (floathi2): Delete expander; re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32355
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32355&action=edit
Dump after bb-reorder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
Bug ID: 60533
Summary: [4.8/4.9 regression] Error introduced by bb-reorder at
-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32354
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32354&action=edit
Dump before bb-reorder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60521
Sergei Turchanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.3 |4.4.7
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Turch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #35 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Mar 15 01:39:03 2014
New Revision: 208586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60532
PR c++/58678
* search.c (get_pure_virtuals): Handl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60532
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60532
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Mar 15 01:39:03 2014
New Revision: 208586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60532
PR c++/58678
* search.c (get_pure_virtuals): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60532
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> BLOCK constructs are not allowed inside WHERE constructs.
> Thus, the "common function optimization" should not create a BLOCK to hold
> the temporary variables, at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60532
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 libopus % < test.ii
class A
{
~A ();
};
class B : A
{
virtual void m () = 0;
};
markus@x4 libopus % g++ -c test.ii
test.ii:5:7: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
class B : A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60532
Bug ID: 60532
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208573 causes Firefox build failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Vogt ---
Thanks a lot!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
Fixed on trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Mar 14 21:28:59 2014
New Revision: 208581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/60392
* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_array_pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531
Bug ID: 60531
Summary: template function not resolved when comparing
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 32353
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32353&action=edit
A patch
This patch checks LEAVE and remove stack deallocation.
It removes 5 stack deallocations in cc1plus on Linux/i6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #5)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> > -march=native
>
> For what host?
Like in comment0: -march=amdfam10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32350|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> -march=native
For what host?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57052
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Mar 14 19:36:18 2014
New Revision: 208574
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-12 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
2013-04-2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Mar 14 19:36:18 2014
New Revision: 208574
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-12 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
2013-04-2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|WHERE construct causes an |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #33 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 14 19:06:54 2014
New Revision: 208573
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208573&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58678
* search.c (dfs_get_pure_virtuals): Treat the destruct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57821
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.0
--- Comment #10 from John David
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60530
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to David Kredba from comment #0)
> Created attachment 32351 [details]
> Un-reduced preprocessed source file gzipped
>
> The only one object file causing the erro from -o ssh ssh.o readconf.o
> clientloop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60530
--- Comment #1 from David Kredba ---
When system libraries are removed, ssh.i file links to ssh file:
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -o ssh ssh.i -L. -Lopenbsd-compat/ -flto=4
-fuse-linker-plugin -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-O2 -Wl,-flto -O2 -ggdb -pipe
-march=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60530
Bug ID: 60530
Summary: openssh-6.5p1 can't be built with lto - revision
208516
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #3)
> Created attachment 32350 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> In the description for the patch in question, I mentioned how during
> stage1 we could clean up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Mar 14 18:10:59 2014
New Revision: 208572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58721
* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver (GLIBCXX_3.4.11): Remove unu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Unfortunately the patch regresses abi_check in libstdc++, libstdc++.so.6 now
> because of the patch exports
> _ZNSt12system_errorC1ESt10error_codeRKSs@@GLIBCXX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 14 17:58:52 2014
New Revision: 208571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60484
* common.opt (dump_base_name_prefixed): New V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Bug ID: 60529
Summary: internal compiler error with allocatable sub-component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
Created attachment 32350
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32350&action=edit
proposed patch
In the description for the patch in question, I mentioned how during
stage1 we could clean up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Octal literals are also used in macro definitions from system headers, so
care would be needed that a warning doesn't apply to those.
Such a warning should of course not apply to 0 (and mayb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> To avoid duplicates, the front-end could just return something else, like
> NULL, when it detects this case (I guess the behavior is undefined and we
> can do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately the patch regresses abi_check in libstdc++, libstdc++.so.6 now
because of the patch exports
_ZNSt12system_errorC1ESt10error_codeRKSs@@GLIBCXX_3.4.11
_ZNSt12system_errorC2ESt10error_codeRKSs@@GLI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It also breaks nearly every test in SPEC 2k and 2k6 ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60528
Bug ID: 60528
Summary: MIPS GCC puts out complex constant incorrectly when in
big-endian mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> > I would need a different (middle-end) warning that
> > detects return &local_var,
>
> To confirm this, I looked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60508
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Mar 14 16:34:57 2014
New Revision: 208570
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-14 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/60508
* lr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
I've just regtested a similar patch, so it looks good.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60527
Bug ID: 60527
Summary: Incorrectly removed if statement while doing int
arithmetics
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> I would need a different (middle-end) warning that
> detects return &local_var,
To confirm this, I looked at the last dangling reference I debugged, recompiled
it wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53711
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 14 15:20:28 2014
New Revision: 208569
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/53711
* d++.dg/warn/anonymous-namespace-6.C: New test.
Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/ZZ0iPFE7TFk
for a discussion of ifort's behavior (which is the other way round than
gfortran's: it used to accept it but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Bug ID: 60526
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Accepts-invalid: Variable
name same as type name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Anyway, this is because finish_options is called for every optimize attribute
(handle_optimize_attribute->parse_optimize_attribute->decode_options->finish_options)
+ one more time for command line options and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Confirmed. GCC 4.4 works.
Well, seems 4.4 puts the dump file in $PWD.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60518
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 14 12:54:25 2014
New Revision: 208567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208567&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60518
* cfghooks.c (s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> Where is the clobber added?
front-end, I expect (sorry, I'm trying to get something to work on windows and
don't have my usual sources at hand).
> The closer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #5 from David Brown ---
I agree that warnings to match something like the MISRA coding standards would
be best done as a plugin.
But I believe that in this case, warning on octal literals would be quite a
small addition to the main gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60525
Bug ID: 60525
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at
final.c:2952
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I would suggest that you implement this as a plugin. Plugins are particularly
useful for enforcing this type of coding standards. If you make a generally
useful plugin like one enforcing MISRA standards,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60461
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Mar 14 10:49:05 2014
New Revision: 208566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-13 Martin Jambor
PR lto/60461
* ipa-prop.c (ipa_modify
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > > I see in the dump:
> > >
> > > # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P5
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60524
Bug ID: 60524
Summary: Typedef information bypassed in dwarf2 function
parameter information when it is 'const'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Mar 14 09:52:07 2014
New Revision: 208565
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from 2014-03-14 trunk r208562.
PR target/59396
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Nothing obvious stands out. I presume that exceptions cannot be caught?
OK, it's presumably http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-12/msg00157.html but no ARM
maintainer has stepped in yet. :-( Try this:
Index:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Mar 14 09:41:51 2014
New Revision: 208564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from 2014-03-14 trunk r208562.
PR target/59396
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Mar 14 09:27:19 2014
New Revision: 208562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59396
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_set_current_function): Pass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60518
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so it's branch_prob()s call of split_block that splits the common latch of
loops 1 and 2
: (header loop 1)
: (header loop 2, latch loop 2 and 1)
_2 = fn1 ();
if (_2 != 0)
goto ;
else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Octal literals are very useful for expressing unix/posix file modes like 0777
or even 0666. So having the warning part of eith -Wall or -Wextra does not
make sense.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Bug ID: 60523
Summary: Warning flag for octal literals
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Furthermore, it is already fixed since r208551.
Indeed, the fix for PR57320 also fixed this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60521
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Bug ID: 60522
Summary: WHERE construct causes an ICE in gfc_trans_where_2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> This change:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
> index a61e475..3b6718f 100644
> --- a/gcc/function.c
> +++ b/gcc/function.c
> @@ -6238,6 +6238,7 @@ thr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60521
Bug ID: 60521
Summary: std::lock_guard ignores adopt_lock strategy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60492
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > I see in the dump:
> >
> > # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_8>
> > D.2272 ={v} {CLOBBER};
> > # VUSE <.MEM_4>
> > _
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60492
--- Comment #6 from J.R. Heisey ---
Really? What rule would make this behavior expected?
98 matches
Mail list logo
