https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #13 from Honggyu Kim hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com ---
Created attachment 35041
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35041action=edit
backport patch from linaro
Jongsung Kim (neidhard@lge.com) found a patch that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #35 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:22:12 2015
New Revision: 221473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221473root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #34 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:04:58 2015
New Revision: 221472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221472root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #12 from Honggyu Kim hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #11)
Thinking about it again, there's no reason not to do sibcalls, it's just the
code gets confused on how to shuffle the arguments around.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:01:54 2015
New Revision: 221471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221471root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Note that it compiles if I add -fno-ipa-icf.
Yeah, but it is partitioning bug; it should be able to deal with whatever
aliases ICF creates.
I will take a look tonight or tomorrow.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64626
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Tue Mar 17 00:50:55 2015
New Revision: 221470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221470root=gccview=rev
Log:
libcpp/
2015-03-16 Edward Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
Both patches look wrong to me.
For the first change, it is wrong to add TSAN_FUNC_EXIT (), you should never
add it out of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
--- Comment #10 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com ---
I made a clean build of r220825, and it succeeded. Then I downgraded to
r22, and it produced similar link errors, although not in type_info.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
Bug ID: 65438
Summary: Unnecessary ptr check
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
While I couldn't reproduce this on aarch64-linux, on arm-linux-gnueabihf
without the revert all my bootstraps since Friday ended up with ICEs, both
profiledbootstrap and normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65440
Bug ID: 65440
Summary: pass_lim misses support for predicated code motion
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Mon Mar 16 11:17:32 2015
New Revision: 221457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221457root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Max Ostapenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further reduced so it doesn't rely on any C++11 or C++14 features:
templatetypename T struct shared_ptr { };
templatetypename T, typename Arg
shared_ptrT make_shared(Arg) { return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thinking about it again, there's no reason not to do sibcalls, it's just the
code gets confused on how to shuffle the arguments around. Will investigate
deeper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441
Bug ID: 65441
Summary: FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi (test
for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65071
--- Comment #3 from Mikhail Maltsev maltsevm at gmail dot com ---
For the record: a patch for this PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01067.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65437
Bug ID: 65437
Summary: acc_update_device and acc_update_self fail to
initialize runtime.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced:
templatetypename T struct shared_ptr { };
templatetypename T, typename Arg
shared_ptrT make_shared(Arg) { return {}; }
auto f(int n){
return make_sharedint[n](1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
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=65439
Bug ID: 65439
Summary: [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-4.C
-std=gnu++98 scan-ipa-dump icf Equal symbols: 6
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35039
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35039action=edit
Patch for discussion
OK so this is a frustrating area to debug. One can see the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
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=65312
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65431
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the bug is that tree-vect-generic.c doesn't lower COND_EXPRs, only
VEC_COND_EXPRs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #12)
We won't want that mem_operand_gpr change for Linux or AIX as we do the
alignment checking of more complex expressions in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64954
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64261
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Bug 64342 depends on bug 64895, which changed state.
Bug 64895 Summary: RA picks the wrong register for -fipa-ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65314
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65340
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65435
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Mar 16 09:42:21 2015
New Revision: 221448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221448root=gccview=rev
Log:
Revert 'Use actual_call_used_reg_set to find conflicting regs'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Mar 16 09:42:21 2015
New Revision: 221448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221448root=gccview=rev
Log:
Revert 'Use actual_call_used_reg_set to find conflicting regs'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 16 10:26:28 2015
New Revision: 221453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221453root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65409
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If somebody happens to have a commandline and .i file with which the problem
can be reproduced using a non-bootstrap compiler, please attach it here.
Thanks,
- Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65269
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65435
Bug ID: 65435
Summary: UBsan runtime error reports in OpenSSL aes_core.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
Bug ID: 65436
Summary: Max number of extended asm +input operands currently
limited to 15
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 16 10:30:29 2015
New Revision: 221456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221456root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65409
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 16 10:28:39 2015
New Revision: 221454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221454root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65409
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65071
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #20)
Patch posted last night: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00069.html
A somewhat better version might emerge tonight now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37303
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65431
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 16 16:10:17 2015
New Revision: 221459
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221459root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65431
* omp-low.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59324
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Both patches look wrong to me.
For the first change, it is wrong to add TSAN_FUNC_EXIT (), you should never
add it out of nothing. First of all, you might consider allowing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Consider test.c, compiled with -O2 -tree-parallelize-loops=2:
...
#include stdio.h
extern unsigned int *a;
void
f (unsigned int n)
{
int i;
unsigned int sum = 1;
#pragma omp parallel
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65440
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Concrete example ( based on example at
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c;h=9aba79ba776944ec6fba8459354deabe8c126b75;hb=HEAD#l333)
test.c:
...
#include string.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65442
Bug ID: 65442
Summary: pass_lim misses support for exit-first loops
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65440
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59991
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65435
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
FYI, I've now opened an issue in the OpenSSL bug tracker:
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=3751
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59761
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51562
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willus0 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17534
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17534
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
Bug ID: 65443
Summary: Don't peel last iteration from loop in
transform_to_exit_first_loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Shachnev mitya57 at gmail dot com ---
Will anything bad happen if that memory is freed in the destructor?
For me, the issue is mostly aesthetic — I got used to not seeing any Valgrind
warnings in my programs :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65423
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Krauss from comment #10)
I made a clean build of r220825, and it succeeded. Then I downgraded to
r22, and it produced similar link errors, although not in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59491
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65061
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dmitry Shachnev from comment #2)
Will anything bad happen if that memory is freed in the destructor?
Yes, because other destructors could run later, and could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
AFAIU, this is meant with the todo:
...
bb x:
goto bb y;
bb 4:
i_17 = (int) ivtmp_6;
_7 = (long unsigned int) i_17;
_8 = _7 * 4;
_9 = pretmp_24 + _8;
_10 = *_9;
sum_11 = _10 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65444
Bug ID: 65444
Summary: -z bndplt isn't passed to linker for -mmpx when
building dynamic objects
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #2)
The problem with this transformation is that '_20 + 1' might overflow,
that's what the comment 'This may need some additional preconditioning in
case NIT =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #22 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 17 05:20:08 2015
New Revision: 221474
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221474root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
--- Comment #12 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com ---
I did exactly the steps that I mentioned: cleanly build r220825, update to
r22, and build again without cleaning first. The object being to roughly
replicate the conditions when the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, I found the difference. The problem on the external gcc112 system (ie, the
big-endian system) is that the system binutils doesn't support POWER8, so
during gcc config/build,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58625
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
That C __builtin_signbit should be type-generic is bug 36757.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
Hmm, this one compiles just fine for me with today mainline. Does the
problem still reproduce for you? Can you possibly dump out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regression] LTO: ICE in |[5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Mar 16 18:30:49 2015
New Revision: 221463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221463root=gccview=rev
Log:
DR 1688
PR c++/65327
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65431
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 16 18:50:43 2015
New Revision: 221464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221464root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65427
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Presumably started with r166013.
Note that in
constexpr volatile int a = 42;
constexpr int b = a;
the initialization of b should be rejected, but it is not. This is a related
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
Bug ID: 65434
Summary: Memory leak in pool constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
