https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63612
--- Comment #5 from Dietmar Schindler dietmar.schind...@manroland-web.com ---
(In reply to steveren from comment #3)
Is there any public discussion of the rationale behind this design decision?
In news:comp.std.c there is a thread #pragma are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63574
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63542
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 22 06:56:36 2014
New Revision: 216540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216540root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/63542
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 22 06:58:57 2014
New Revision: 216541
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216541root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/63594
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63542
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed for AVX2, for AVX512{F,BW,VL} I'm keeping this open, as something needs
to be done about those patterns, Kyrill, can you please take care of that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
Bug ID: 63613
Summary: Regression: Unable to link .c file using dejagnu.h
API (inline functions not appearing)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
C11 inline semantics vs gnu89 ones. Not a gcc bug. A fix includes is needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That means dejagnu.h assumes the GNU inline semantics, but doesn't use
__gnu_inline__ attribute. So, either compile with -fgnu89-inline, or get
dejagnu.h fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #28 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Paul H. Hargrove from comment #26)
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #25)
Can we close this?
Just tried to build the released 4.8.3 and still see the original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #3 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Aha. Thanks.
Indeed, git bisect just confirmed that r216247 is the first commit in which
my testcase stops working:
commit b2601928b5bf34a817b5a9a2a371c476018e634d
Author: mpolacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe we should also warn about
if (...)
#pragma STDC ...
foo ();
both if we are treating the #pragma as stmt and if not. That is, if the
#pragma appears in a place where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #4)
That's an interesting argument. You may well be right that the original
code, strictly speaking, does not prove that GCC has a bug,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
That means that
/* We pass any -flto flags on to the linker, which is expected
to understand them. In practice, this means it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63223
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #10)
Created attachment 33768 [details]
patch for dtor direction
I have this patch for fixing the direction of the dtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63424
--- Comment #2 from Renlin Li renlin.li at arm dot com ---
VEC_COND_EXPR with V2DI mode is generated as aarch64 target supports it
(vcondmodemode). The VEC_COND_EXPR expression will further folded into
MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR expression in the dom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
This is already fixed in mainline, though. I'm adding the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
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=51213
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
As a matter of fact, I can't reproduce the issue with 4.9.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63612
--- Comment #6 from steveren q@rsn-tech.co.uk ---
(In reply to Dietmar Schindler from comment #5)
In news:comp.std.c there is a thread #pragma are considered statements -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #22 from Matheus Izvekov mizvekov at gmail dot com ---
Apologies, it was a problem on my end!
The fault was just clang and gcc having different default binary names on msys,
'a.out' vs 'a.exe', and me using a stale exe when testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 57248, which changed state.
Bug 57248 Summary: string parameter to constexpr functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63574
Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63223
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Oct 22 10:46:11 2014
New Revision: 216551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216551root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/63223
* config/avr/lib1funcs.S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
Bug ID: 63614
Summary: With gcc-4.8.3 and -stdgnu++0x call to
std::this_thread::get_id() creates SIGSEV
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #13 from Wilco wdijkstr at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
The loops shown are not the correct inner loops for those options - with
-ffast-math they are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
Bug ID: 63615
Summary: [i686][5 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to steveren from comment #6)
Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agreed
to be confusing and undesirable by everyone except the gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63616
Bug ID: 63616
Summary: PRE failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63616
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33778
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33778action=edit
_.178r.cprop1 and _.179r.pre RTL dumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
--- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33779
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33779action=edit
Patch is under testing now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
dyle at dyle dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|minor
--- Comment #1 from dyle at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63617
Bug ID: 63617
Summary: Crash in libstdc++ on AIX.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #5 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW I've reported this on the DejaGnu mailing list here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #11 from steveren q@rsn-tech.co.uk ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
(In reply to steveren from comment #6)
Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agreed
to be confusing and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63609
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to steveren from comment #11)
So assuming it's not actually beyond somebody completely unfamiliar with the
innards of gcc, what would be the response to a patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I would have expected VI instead of IV in the iterator name, but I never
understood the rules for i?86 iterator names.
And, you want the testcase in the testsuite too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63617
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
I would have expected VI instead of IV in the iterator name, but I never
understood the rules for i?86 iterator names.
And, you want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dyle from comment #0)
Is this a gcc bug? Is it possible that std::this_thread::get_id() SIGSEVs?
Yes it's possible if you don't use -pthread to link to libpthread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
--- Comment #3 from dyle at dyle dot org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
(In reply to dyle from comment #0)
Is this a gcc bug? Is it possible that std::this_thread::get_id() SIGSEVs?
Yes it's possible if you don't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
Bug ID: 63618
Summary: CSE at IRA pass delete SET_GOT which is used later
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
--- Comment #1 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33780
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33780action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63609
--- Comment #2 from dccmmccd1 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Please don't set severity=blocker just because you think it's quite
important to you. We're not going to block a GCC release for this issue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #7 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
Let's keep this open for a fix includes solution.
Does anything in gcc's bootstrap or testsuite actually use dejagnu.h? (other
than my jit.exp on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #8 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #7)
[...]
(B) GCC release notes, for some kind of 5.0 porting guide (i.e.
what does an end-user need to know about the gnu11 change?)
...and I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #7)
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
Let's keep this open for a fix includes solution.
Does anything in gcc's bootstrap or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63530
--- Comment #4 from carrot at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: carrot
Date: Wed Oct 22 15:56:59 2014
New Revision: 216562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216562root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/63530
tree-vect-data-refs.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
--- Comment #2 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33781
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33781action=edit
leave SET_GOT while pic_offset_table_rtx is pseudo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
Bug ID: 63619
Summary: warning: deleting ‘void*’ is undefined has no -W flag
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
Bug ID: 63620
Summary: RELOAD lost SET_GOT dependency on Darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63574
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
finally, reproduced on latest gcc revision 216547 on chrome book native build
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@216547
./cc1plus -O2 natUnsafe.ii
Performing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
--- Comment #1 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
The issue reproduced only if patch from PR63618 is applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #14 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
Compiling the test-case above with just -O2, I can reproduce the code I
mentioned initially and easily measure the cycle count to run it on target
using perf.
The binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #12 from Harald van Dijk harald at gigawatt dot nl ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
I can't reproduce your findings with any of the specified GCC version nor
with any other I tried (I tried on x86_64-linux and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Keith.S.Thompson at gmail dot com wrote:
Do you believe that the authors of the standard meant it the way you do?
The authors of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The simplest fix would be:
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
@@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ delete_sanity (tree exp, tree size, bool doing_vec, int
use_global_delete,
/* Deleting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #15 from Wilco wdijkstr at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Evandro Menezes from comment #14)
Compiling the test-case above with just -O2, I can reproduce the code I
mentioned initially and easily measure the cycle count to run it on
--disable-bootstrap --enable-shared --disable-sjlj-exceptions --enable-gomp
--enable-cloog-backend=isl LTLDFLAGS=-no-undefined
lt_cv_deplibs_check_method=pass_all
Thread model: win32
gcc version 5.0.0 20141022 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-L/tmp/winsup/i686-pc-cygwin/winsup/cygwin' '-isystem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63621
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-pc-cygwin |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
petschy at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petschy at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63621
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63622
Bug ID: 63622
Summary: [5.0 Regression] Bootstrap fails on
x86_64-apple-darwin1[34] after revision r216305
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #36 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #35)
(In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #33)
Created attachment 33769 [details]
patch includes 3 patches fixing darwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 22 20:51:00 2014
New Revision: 216566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216566root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-22 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45729
Andre Goddard Rosa andre.rosa at lge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.rosa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
Wilco wdijkstr at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
--- Comment #3 from Teodor Petrov fuscated at gmail dot com ---
We already use -Werror=delete-incomplete, so it will be easier for us, because
it will just work.
But if you ask me (as a user) it is best to just change the standard to force
these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Ignore my last comment. I found the official submission in my queue. Somehow
I missed it when I first went looking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5694
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 22 21:42:48 2014
New Revision: 216568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216568root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-22 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
--- Comment #2 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33784
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33784action=edit
patch making the test and darwin bootstrap pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #10 from Wilco wdijkstr at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00160.html
Note currently it is not possible to use FP registers for spilling using the
hooks - basically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #16 from Evandro e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
Using -Ofast is not any different from -O3 -ffast-math when compiling
non-Fortran code. As comment 10 shows, both loops are vectorized, however
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #17 from Evandro e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 33785
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33785action=edit
Simple matrix multiplication
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
Evandro e.menezes at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33774|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #19 from Wilco wdijkstr at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Evandro from comment #16)
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
Using -Ofast is not any different from -O3 -ffast-math when compiling
non-Fortran code. As comment 10 shows,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #76 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33787
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33787action=edit
a reduced test case of SCiBE compiler/vam test
compiler/vam is a test which is an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #77 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33788
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33788action=edit
another reduced test case of compiler/vam
This is an another test case got from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
Breakpoint 1, simplify_plus_minus (code=code@entry=PLUS,
mode=mode@entry=SImode, op0=op0@entry=0x76d4b558,
op1=op1@entry=0x76d483a8) at /src/gcc-virgin/gcc/simplify-rtx.c:3967
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63497
--- Comment #5 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Oct 23 03:15:52 2014
New Revision: 216572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216572root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63497
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
--- Comment #7 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Oct 23 03:34:02 2014
New Revision: 216573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216573root=gccview=rev
Log:
Commit old ChangeLog entry forgotten in commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58726
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.4 |4.8.3
94 matches
Mail list logo
