https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Dziwinski piotrdz at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
tr1::tuple doesn't support perfect-forwarding or move semantics
tr1::tuple doesn't support uses-allocator construction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63411
--- Comment #2 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
Compiling the following as C or C++:
typedef struct
{
unsigned char sprindex;
unsigned char y;
unsigned char index;
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63413
Bug ID: 63413
Summary: cpp trying to expand vector word in commented line
in fortran file on power8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63368
Mathieu Malaterre mathieu.malaterre at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63411
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63411
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63411
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
We saw similar problems on arm too. Problem is IVOPT's model doesn't know
the detail of target addressing mode. This is should be fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56393
--- Comment #46 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
Can we close this one? Does not seem to repro in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Manuel, I'm looking into this. I think it makes sense to also submit the
testcase updates, or at least provide a breakdown. I'm working on that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63412
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
Similarly, if compiling with -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations makes a difference, your code probably is
not correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #49 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #48)
The array at i = 699 doesn't seem to contain anything valid.
It looks that
(expr_list:DF (use (mem:DF (reg/f:SI 699) [0 S8 A32]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63408
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33618
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33618action=edit
[1/2] Use fuse-caller-save-info in cprop-hardreg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33619
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33619action=edit
[2/2] Don't regard a copy with identical src and dest as killing dest
This patch adds handling of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 30 10:30:45 2014
New Revision: 215712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215712root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/63282
* ifcvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 30 10:33:25 2014
New Revision: 215713
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215713root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/63282
* ifcvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63400
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe we should make high_resolution_clock a typedef for steady_clock on
mingw-w64 but maybe only when using winpthreads.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63409
Martin Liška mliska at suse dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška mliska at suse dot cz ---
Hello Honza. I've been working on SPEC numbers, I will send it this evening.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
Bug ID: 63414
Summary: template parse error using operator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Malkmus tomalk at mathematik dot uni-freiburg.de
---
#include iostream
templateclass T
int bar ( const T ) { return 0; }
struct Foo
{
int bar;
};
templateclass F
void callBar ( F foo )
{
if( foo.bar0 )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63415
Bug ID: 63415
Summary: internal compiler error: unexpected expression
‘static_castint(std::is_sameT, A1{})’ of kind
static_cast_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63414
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomalk at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63415
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63415
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If this isn't a regression (which it doesn't seem to be) then setting Target
Milestone to 4.8.4 doesn't seem appropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #3)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
+ vec_arglist.release();
Formatting. You could use auto_vec, perhaps with some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #6 from Agustín Bergé kaballo86 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Piotr Dziwinski from comment #5)
It seems
the recursive version of `std::tuple` is not going to be optimized easily
and the new flat implementation is the way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
+ vec_arglist.release();
Formatting. You could use auto_vec, perhaps with some stack allocated
initial buffer if you think say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
If this isn't a regression (which it doesn't seem to be) then setting Target
Milestone to 4.8.4 doesn't seem appropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #23)
Manuel, I'm looking into this. I think it makes sense to also submit the
testcase updates, or at least provide a breakdown. I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61605
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #8 from Agustín Bergé kaballo86 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
(In reply to Agustín Bergé from comment #6)
Well, not necessarily, It's not `std::tuple` which is at fault, but the
compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
Gert-jan Los gerrit.los at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerrit.los at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
Bug ID: 63416
Summary: Three calls to empty functions via pointers get
folded, but not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
--- Comment #1 from Felix Shvaiger felix.shvaiger at emc dot com ---
Created attachment 33621
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33621action=edit
2 function calls - (for comparison) folded, inlined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
--- Comment #2 from Felix Shvaiger felix.shvaiger at emc dot com ---
Created attachment 33622
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33622action=edit
disassembly of compiled a1.c -- bad code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63416
--- Comment #3 from Felix Shvaiger felix.shvaiger at emc dot com ---
Created attachment 33623
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33623action=edit
disassembly of compiled a2.c -- good code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63410
--- Comment #1 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Sep 30 15:41:11 2014
New Revision: 215727
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215727root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR plugins/63410: Fix missing headers for plugins
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63417
Bug ID: 63417
Summary: scanf: problem handling %hhd format
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63417
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62120
--- Comment #1 from tocarip at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tocarip
Date: Tue Sep 30 16:04:15 2014
New Revision: 215729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215729root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR 62120.
gcc/
2014-09-30 Ilya Tocar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58893
--- Comment #12 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Sep 30 16:08:53 2014
New Revision: 215730
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215730root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-30 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63410
--- Comment #2 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Sep 30 16:32:33 2014
New Revision: 215731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215731root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR plugins/63410 Fix missing pass-instances.def
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63410
dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61669
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Steven, do you plan to commit your fix which has been acked back in August?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
Bug ID: 63418
Summary: false positive with -Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
Bug ID: 63419
Summary: verify_gimple failed: vector CONSTRUCTOR element is
not a GIMPLE value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #25 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 30 17:10:35 2014
New Revision: 215733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215733root=gccview=rev
Log:
cp/
2014-09-30 Manuel López-Ibáñez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #26 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 30 17:11:38 2014
New Revision: 215734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215734root=gccview=rev
Log:
cp/
2014-09-30 Manuel López-Ibáñez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #27 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Can we close the bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63420
Bug ID: 63420
Summary: GCC 4.8.2: Bitshift second operand range not as per
manual.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #27)
Can we close the bug?
There is still the issue that we print:
x.ii:5: instantiated from `SAAAint
but that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #16 from Maciej W. Rozycki ma...@linux-mips.org ---
The unwinder issue has been now fixed along PR target/60102, rev. 213596.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43113
Bug 43113 depends on bug 16564, which changed state.
Bug 16564 Summary: g++ seems to go into an infinite loop after errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26099
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Agustín Bergé from comment #8)
Please let me know if I can help you in any other way.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
As for the g++ issue, then a minimal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #3)
you need -fstack-protector or -fstack-protector-strong to reproduce this.
That still doesn't ICE the compiler on 4.9 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33626
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33626action=edit
w1.c
attached the repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #3)
you need -fstack-protector or -fstack-protector-strong to reproduce this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, the system compiler was build slightly before Jason's
r215172 checkin from 20140911.
gcc version 4.9.2 20140911 (prerelease) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
Daniel Sommermann dcsommer at fb dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcsommer at fb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63316
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #10 from Agustín Bergé kaballo86 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #9)
I cannot say if the libstdc++ implementation could be better
From a compile-time performance point of view it is, check the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #7 from Gert-jan Los gerrit.los at gmail dot com ---
2014-09-30 20:39:22 CEST schrieb trippels at gcc dot gnu.org:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63405
--- Comment #8 from Gert-jan Los gerrit.los at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33629
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33629action=edit
bisect.log
--- Comment #9 from Gert-jan Los gerrit.los at gmail dot com ---
Created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #50 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Sep 30 22:12:42 2014
New Revision: 215744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215744root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55212
* lra.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #51 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #50)
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Sep 30 22:12:42 2014
New Revision: 215744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215744root=gccview=rev
Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #52 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33632
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33632action=edit
Reduced case of error: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1335
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63418
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=63418
--- Comment #3 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for confirming the current state of this warning :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63421
Bug ID: 63421
Summary: GCC generates a very misleading warning when looking
at an erroneously-overloaded type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62225
Sandra Loosemore sandra at codesourcery dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63285
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Vlad, do you plan to apply this to 4.9 and 4.8 branches too?
For 4.9, I've bootstrapped/regtested it on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #2)
Ping? Any updates on this?
Sorry, I'll look at this in a week or if I am lucky this week. Right now, I am
quite busy with register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144
--- Comment #4 from Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks. I have to admit that that does seem more generally useful! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
Bug ID: 63422
Summary: [5.0 Regression] ICE in freqs_to_counts_path, at
tree-ssa-threadupdate.c:981
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61898
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
Yes, this function is new in r215739. I will see if I can trigger it
tomorrow. If you have a smaller test case that would be great. Or even
if you can give me the gcda file and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63285
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #6)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Vlad, do you plan to apply this to 4.9 and 4.8 branches too?
For 4.9, I've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #2)
Yes, this function is new in r215739. I will see if I can trigger it
tomorrow. If you have a smaller test case that
90 matches
Mail list logo
