https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
--- Comment #7 from Freddie Chopin freddie_chopin at op dot pl ---
Great (; Do you have some timeline? I'm not trying to rush you - I'm just
working on a project in which this feature would be beneficial, so I'm
wondering whether I should wait a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Ryabinin ryabinin.a.a at gmail dot com ---
Hi, may I ask what's the status of this?
Besides of section mismatches in linux kernel it also breaks kernel's modules.
Variable __this_module doesn't get into section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61881
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 06:41:37 2014
New Revision: 214843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214843root=gccview=rev
Log:
Missed that file in r213079 of 2014-07-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61888
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 06:41:37 2014
New Revision: 214843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214843root=gccview=rev
Log:
Missed that file in r213079 of 2014-07-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 06:41:37 2014
New Revision: 214843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214843root=gccview=rev
Log:
Missed that file in r213079 of 2014-07-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62663
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
Then this is most likely a linker bug, not setting up the GOT correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63152
Bug ID: 63152
Summary: needless initialization of local pointer arrays.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63152
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63153
Bug ID: 63153
Summary: pointers are not nullified with -finit-local-zero
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61330
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed Sep 3 07:23:01 2014
New Revision: 214847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214847root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-09-03 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60606
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed Sep 3 07:23:01 2014
New Revision: 214847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214847root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-09-03 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton chris2553 at googlemail dot com ---
Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means.
I think you are saying that prior to r214208, the symbols definedMacros() and
headerPaths() were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #12)
Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means.
I think you are saying that prior to r214208,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #21 from Fredrik Hederstierna
fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com ---
I filed this previously, maybe its duplicate
Bug 61578 - Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling
with -Os
BR Fredrik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
I agree that this is something we need to fix in the back-end. I was just
curious about when this surfaced first and keep that info for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61078
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Sep 3 08:06:09 2014
New Revision: 214850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214850root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Andreas Krebbel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63152
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61078
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61654
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.10.0 |5.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00209.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00210.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63148
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60276
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doug.gilmore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You might want to try -fsanitize=undefined and/or -fno-strict-overflow as it
sounds like you may be invoking undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
(In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #12)
Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
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=55334
--- Comment #39 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vidya Praveen from comment #38)
Until we fix this issue, could we have workaround posted by Martin Jambor
(comment #29) applied again on 4.9 and trunk?
No, not on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
nOn Wed, 3 Sep 2014, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #39 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Hoffmann gcc at boomerangsworld dot de ---
Thanks for the feedback, I am also suspecting I have some problem in my code
regarding undefined behavior.
What I do for testing is to compile my tool Worker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thus dup of PR61320?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 11:16:29 2014
New Revision: 214871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214871root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/62024
* c-parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm sorry but I cannot reproduce the problem with the attached testcase. I
will try the libxul link.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Bug ID: 63155
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] memory hog
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is a git mirror of the svn repo.
Anyway, -fsanitize=undefined enables -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks, perhaps
you could try that option alone if it makes a difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 12:54:06 2014
New Revision: 214874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214874root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/62294
* c-typeck.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Hoffmann gcc at boomerangsworld dot de ---
Created attachment 33442
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33442action=edit
simplified example file 1
simple example containing the code piece which triggers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #8 from Ralf Hoffmann gcc at boomerangsworld dot de ---
Created attachment 33443
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33443action=edit
aguixtest.cc
file with helper functions, not related to the problem, but required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Hoffmann gcc at boomerangsworld dot de ---
Created attachment 33444
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33444action=edit
aguixtest.hh
file with helper functions, not related to the problem, but required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Hoffmann gcc at boomerangsworld dot de ---
Created attachment 33445
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33445action=edit
build
build script used to create executable test program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #11 from Ralf Hoffmann gcc at boomerangsworld dot de ---
I managed to create a standalone test program. Attachment aguix.cc contains
the stripped down critical code segments. The two other files aguixtest.cc
and aguixtest.hh are just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 13:20:43 2014
New Revision: 214876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214876root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/62294
* gcc.dg/pr62294.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
--- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Thomé Emmanuel.Thome at inria dot fr ---
Thanks.
E.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58526
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also RFC patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00232.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder why we need to explicitely represent abnormal PHIs in the dispatcher.
All incoming edges are abnormal and all SSA names have to be coalesced anyway.
Thus we could instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
New attempt: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00232.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 14:16:54 2014
New Revision: 214877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214877root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So the issue is that the setjmp argument needs two temporaries:
D.2832 = Unity.CurrentAbortFrame;
D.2833 = Unity.AbortFrame[D.2832];
bb 18:
D.2834 = _setjmp (D.2833);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 14:26:38 2014
New Revision: 214878
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214878root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can reproduce the bug on the 4.9 branch too and the code is the same
in 4.8 as well (although the bug does not manifest form me there), so
please keep this bug opened until I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to saugustine from comment #0)
My uneducated guess is that the template at atomic:189 should either use
_M_i in calls to __atomic_is_lock_free (instead of nullptr) or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62270
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:04:27 2014
New Revision: 214881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214881root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR fortran/62270
* interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
The code in cxx_eval_bit_field_ref needs some work, doesn't handle CONSTRUCTORs
inside CONSTRUCTORs. This is a reduced testcase:
struct BitsOrderCheck
{
struct Data
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:13:03 2014
New Revision: 214882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214882root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:16:28 2014
New Revision: 214883
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214883root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:33:10 2014
New Revision: 214884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214884root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:36:06 2014
New Revision: 214885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214885root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
Bug ID: 63156
Summary: web can't handle AUTOINC correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61559
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62270
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 17:25:45 2014
New Revision: 214887
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214887root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR fortran/62270
* interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63157
Bug ID: 63157
Summary: may_alias doesn't work as expected in template nested
types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63158
Bug ID: 63158
Summary: Possible wrong code with absend optional BT_CLASS -
optional BT_DERIVED dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62174
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 18:50:27 2014
New Revision: 214891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214891root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Fritz Reese reese-fr...@zai.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62174
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
Vitali vlovich at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlovich at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #12 from Vitali vlovich at gmail dot com ---
Actually, http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header seems to indicate that when
compiling as C++, complex.h should be equal to including ccomplex in a global
namespace. It seems like the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vitali from comment #12)
It seems like the inclusion of C99 complex.h is a GNU
extension should only be done if GNU extensions are enabled.
That would be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #14 from Vitali vlovich at gmail dot com ---
Actually, found a better workaround for lapacke.
Adding
#include ccomplex
#define lapack_complex_float std::complexfloat
#define lapack_complex_double std::complexdouble
before I include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vitali from comment #14)
Actually, found a better workaround for lapacke.
Good.
#include ccomplex
Please save one character and include complex instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, yeah.
When we were originally developing the ABI, we wanted to allow implementations
to make all of the symbols entry points to the same function. But this didn't
end up being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
I think I'm sympathetic to Rafael's argument that we should stick with the
4.7 behavior since that's what most deployed GCCs currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #5 from Roland Schulz roland at rschulz dot eu ---
This seems to me to be a duplicate of 49001.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61730
Roland Schulz roland at rschulz dot eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49001
--- Comment #4 from Roland Schulz roland at rschulz dot eu ---
*** Bug 61730 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63159
Bug ID: 63159
Summary: Demangler crash
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee:
Summary ===
# of expected passes16
/home/stevenb/devel/build-arm/gcc/xgcc version 5.0.0 20140903 (experimental)
[trunk revision 214887] (GCC)
What is your command line for configure?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
--- Comment #3 from Carrot carrot at google dot com ---
../trunk3/configure '--build=x86_64-build_unknown-linux-gnu'
'--host=x86_64-build_unknown-linux-gnu' '--target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63148
Doug Gilmore doug.gilmore at imgtec dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
