https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63504
Bug ID: 63504
Summary: [5 Regression] Issues found by
--enable-checking=valgrind
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63207
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Oct 10 03:28:18 2014
New Revision: 216056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63207
* semantics.c (outer_var_p): Non-static.
(process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #25 from Teresa Johnson ---
Unfortunately I can't reproduce this failure. Here's what I did:
In my gcc source:
% svn update -r r216039
In my build directory:
% ~/gcc_trunk_7/configure
--prefix=/usr/local/google/home/tejohnson/gcc_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28367
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63502
--- Comment #1 from Bill Klees ---
Setting breakpoint at s390_add_constant
Breakpoint 5, s390_add_constant (pool=0x80da0880, val=0x20003889cc0,
mode=BLKmod
at /home/bjk/gcc/gcc-4.9.1/./gcc/config/s390/s390.c:6400
6400 for (i = 0; i < NR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also how sure are you that it is the fused multiply-add and not the scheduling
of the instructions? As I mentioned, try swapping the cmp and fmadd; you might
get a performance boost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #4 from Evandro Menezes ---
Here's a simplified code to reproduce these results:
double sum(double *A, double *B, int n)
{
int i;
double res = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
res += A [i] * B [i];
return res;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #3 from Evandro Menezes ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The other question here are there denormals happening? That might cause
> some performance differences between using fmadd and fmul/fadd.
Nope, no denormals.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The other option it is the fusion of the cmp and branch which is causing the
improvement.
Can you manually edit the assembly and swap the cmp and fmadd in the GCC output
and try again?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be true for A57 but for our chip (ThunderX), using fused
multiply-add is better.
The other question here are there denormals happening? That might cause some
performance differences between using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
Bug ID: 63503
Summary: [AArch64] A57 executes fused multiply-add poorly in
some situations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #24 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
> With r216039, I still got
>
> ../../src-trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Would it make sense to overload __addressof so it accepts any glvalue? In
practice, that means also accepting prvalue...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
With r216039, I still got
../../src-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c: In function ‘cp_parser_declaration_seq_opt’:
../../src-trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c:11049:0: error: verify_flow_info: Wrong
probability of edge 53->54 -11922283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63502
Bug ID: 63502
Summary: ICE in s390_add_constant when building with g++ in
S390x Linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63488
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:27:08PM +, zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63488
>
> --- Comment #7 from Paul Zimmermann ---
> I agree that near zeroes we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63322
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61909
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::function f3((X())); // abort
This works now, but the lambda still needs to allocate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63488
--- Comment #7 from Paul Zimmermann ---
I agree that near zeroes we can expect large errors. However for other
functions
I got only small errors in ulps, maybe I was unlucky. Also the ultimate goal is
to get correct rounding, even near zeroes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63501
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63501
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63501
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||saugustine at google dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61909
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 9 18:17:28 2014
New Revision: 216047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61909
* include/std/functional (__is_location_invari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63322
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 9 18:17:23 2014
New Revision: 216046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216046&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63322
* include/std/atomic (atomic): Add assertion f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Wouter Vermaelen from comment #0)
> Is the following a bug in the debug version of std::make_move_iterator or is
> it a bug in my code? It compiles fine with older gcc versions (both debug
> and no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3)
> So, there's no way to programmatically check whether a flag is supported,
> without resorting to grepping the output or something like that. Great.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63501
Bug ID: 63501
Summary: ICE in GCC powerpc64le top of trunk with
-mupper-regs-df
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63309
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
Slightly simplified test case that still fails without a function call:
typedef __int128_t __attribute__((__vector_size__(16))) vector_128_t;
typedef unsigned long long scalar_64_t;
vector_128_t
foo (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63415
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 9 18:05:23 2014
New Revision: 216043
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63415
* pt.c (value_dependent_expression_p) [CONSTRUCTOR]:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63309
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 9 18:05:29 2014
New Revision: 216044
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216044&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63309
* parser.c (cp_parser_class_head): push_template_decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63437
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 9 18:05:17 2014
New Revision: 216042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63437
* cp-tree.h (REF_PARENTHESIZED_P): Also allow INDIREC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63488
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:34:11PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Testing 1 values in a small interval about the lowest
> 10 zeros, the double precision y0() on FreeBSD (which comes
> from fdli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
So, there's no way to programmatically check whether a flag is supported,
without resorting to grepping the output or something like that. Great.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63488
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Ah, ok. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
Bug ID: 63500
Summary: bug in debug version of std::make_move_iterator?
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63492
--- Comment #1 from baoshan ---
CCing Mark who approved the born of genconditions.c, it seems the author Zack
is busy on his study on colleague.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63498
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
Bug ID: 63499
Summary: gcc treats unknown -Wno-xxx options differently than
-Wxxx
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63498
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63498
Bug ID: 63498
Summary: spurious warning about unrecognized command line
option "-Wno-typedef-redefinition"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/8/2014 11:07 PM, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> That being said, googling this issue I stumbled upon
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00545.html where you fixed a
> similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15)
> ... but the attached test check one location only.
I shoud say:
... but the test from the Description depends specifically on the code, touched
by the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33665|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #7 from Venkataramanan ---
I tried to look at the RTL and assembly code generated after the patch comitted
in 215707.
The code generated looks good some unoptimal code but it is at -O0.
sub sp, sp, #16 // 15 *addd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #14)
> I see. But you don't touch write_dependence which has a similar check.
I have in fact changed all these places (I will attach the patch momentarily),
but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
>
> --- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63380
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 9 12:45:07 2014
New Revision: 216038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63380
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> I still don't get it. What we end up doing is
>
> reg:DI 72 = /u load from 'a' (insn 6)
> reg:DI 78 = /u load from 'b' (insn 15)
> ...
> RMW sequence o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63497
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63489
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think valgrind only checks heap memory, so doesn't help for buffer overflows
on the stack.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||50414
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63497
Bug ID: 63497
Summary: std::regex can't handle [^class] correctly and cause
runtime crash
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63483
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
I still don't get it. What we end up doing is
reg:DI 72 = /u load from 'a' (insn 6)
reg:DI 78 = /u load from 'b' (insn 15)
...
RMW sequence on (mem:DI (reg:DI 72 ...
store to (mem:SI (reg:DI 78
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53514
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at doublewise dot net
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
I don't know if it is the same one (strange line number):
return offset + GET_MODE_BITSIZE (Pmode) <= offset
(missing tci-> on the first offset probably)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63476
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ah,
#5 0x00c263c2 in ipa_polymorphic_call_context::get_dynamic_type (
this=0x7fffd790, instance=,
otr_object=,
otr_type=, call=)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/ipa-poly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
Bug ID: 63496
Summary: ../../gcc/ipa-polymorphic-call.c:2117:1: error:
assuming signed overflow does not occur when assuming
that (X + c) < X is always false
[-Werr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61969
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 9 10:50:43 2014
New Revision: 216037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61969
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
Roger Lynn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||RLynn at fundamentalsltd dot
co.uk
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59488
Lorenz Hüdepohl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs at stellardeath dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also I guess we can unsuspend this and close as INVALID now that EWG rejected
it.
And maybe issue a diagnostic for comment 12, as EDG and clang do?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> Reduced:
>
> template T list(T x);
>
> template
> auto list(H h, T ...args) -> decltype(list(args...));
>
> auto list3 = list(1, 2, 3);
Interestingly it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63455
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #31 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 9 09:05:37 2014
New Revision: 216035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-10-09 Uros Bizjak
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63428
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60132
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|ville.voutil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60132
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 9 08:37:26 2014
New Revision: 216032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-09 Ville Voutilainen
PR libstdc++/60132
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63489
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Hogg ---
Confirmed, this is the cause is the larger example as well. I had missed the
introduction of -fsanitize=address, useful feature. I'd assumed something like
that valgrind would have picked up for me however!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63480
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Oct 9 08:25:50 2014
New Revision: 216031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/63480
* c-typeck.c (pop_init_level): Don't warn about init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63480
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #30 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 9 08:22:23 2014
New Revision: 216030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-10-09 Uros Bizjak
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61969
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61969
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 9 08:21:46 2014
New Revision: 216029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61969
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 9 08:20:53 2014
New Revision: 216028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63445
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63380
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 63381 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55821
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
