https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78134
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's not returning S::const_iterator, if it was the assertion would pass
because S::iterator and S::const_iterator are the same type. The problem is
that it's returning _Rb_tree::iterator rather than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 11 12:57:42 2017
New Revision: 244314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244314=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/79042
* lto-cgraph.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
Bug ID: 79059
Summary: Information from CCmode is not propagated across basic
blocks
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78852
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> But I think the original example is invalid, the initializer-list
> constructor can be deduced.
Oops, I mean *can't* be deduced. I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I think Jakub's reduced example is valid, and should deduce C.
But I think the original example is invalid, the initializer-list constructor
can be deduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71747
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 70776 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70776
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78495
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> The "simplest" way would be to have separate UNSPECs for all ops (but that
> explodes the number of unspecs I guess).
Would that be so bad? As far as gcc
(simplify_operand_subreg): In the MEM case, test
the alignment of the adjusted memory reference against that of MODE,
instead of the alignment of the original memory reference.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20170111-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/lra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79052
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 11 11:26:59 2017
New Revision: 244310
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244310=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-01-11 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/79052
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79054
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, reassoc has code to do this but it runs too late (after VRP1). With all
early opts we have running it earlier might be an option (for GCC 8).
e.c source, compressed
While building Linux kernel randconfigs with today's gcc snapshot
(arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-7.0.0 (GCC) 7.0.0 20170111 (experimental)), I ran into
an ICE:
/home/arnd/cross-gcc/bin/arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-7.0.0 -Os -mbig-endian -Wall
-Wno-pointer-sign -c build/0xC4732BE7_defconfig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78767
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igorr at il dot ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78852
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78767
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79031
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g++bug at oxyware dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78897
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78572
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77790
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79032
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, but I'm wrong about the initializer-list constructor.
http://wg21.link/p0512r0 made changes that make it valid (but our
implementation might not have those changes yet).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase:
enum { NILFS_SEGMENT_USAGE_ACTIVE, NILFS_SEGMENT_USAGE_DIRTY } a;
void fn2 (long long);
void fn1() {
int b = a & 1 << NILFS_SEGMENT_USAGE_DIRTY;
fn2 (b ? (long long) -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11858
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-10-10 00:00:00 |2017-1-11
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72813
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] atomic |[6 Regression] atomic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12096
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 71537, which changed state.
Bug 71537 Summary: GCC rejects consetxpr boolean conversions and comparisons on
the result of pointer arithmetic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78002
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to hs.naveen2u from comment #2)
> Could not reproduce the issue on latest FSF source:-
>
> Tried using the following command:-
> -gcc -fstack-check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13452
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-18 20:25:19 |2017-1-11
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16992
Bug 16992 depends on bug 13979, which changed state.
Bug 13979 Summary: Error message about no matching function for call with
derived class arguments could be improved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13979
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13979
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14030
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14236
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13005
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13166
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13214
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13355
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13563
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
OK, currently testing TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN solution. Thanks for the
analysis!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61450
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Can regtest it and submit it to the list for review? Many thanks…
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78877
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
--- Comment #3 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 11 16:53:52 2017
New Revision: 244324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244324=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/79042
* lto-cgraph.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14379
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79065
Bug ID: 79065
Summary: ARM generates ldm/stm on packed structs with aligned
members
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79065
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
__attribute__((aligned(4)))
This causes the whole struct to become 4 byte aligned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79065
--- Comment #1 from Brian Viele ---
gcc version 5.4.1 20160609 (release) [ARM/embedded-5-branch revision 237715]
(GCC)
System: Linux xxx 4.4.0-47-generic #68~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 26 19:42:11
UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11582
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20308
Bug 20308 depends on bug 11814, which changed state.
Bug 11814 Summary: Code with missing "template" keyword wrongly accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11814
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6023
Bug 6023 depends on bug 11814, which changed state.
Bug 11814 Summary: Code with missing "template" keyword wrongly accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11814
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12944
Bug 12944 depends on bug 11814, which changed state.
Bug 11814 Summary: Code with missing "template" keyword wrongly accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11814
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11814
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 11 20:10:36 2017
New Revision: 244333
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244333=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/71537
* fold-const.c (maybe_nonzero_address): Return 1 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12086
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78257
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77812
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jan 11 20:37:16 2017
New Revision: 244335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244335=gcc=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/77812
* name-lookup.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12228
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-18 20:16:40 |2017-1-11
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77812
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jan 11 20:49:50 2017
New Revision: 244336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244336=gcc=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/77812
* name-lookup.c
101 - 166 of 166 matches
Mail list logo