https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||Arm-linux-gnueabi
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64012
Bug ID: 64012
Summary: GCC-4.9.2 option -fcaller-saves in -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
> Kaz, do you have any idea why these SUPPORT_SH* macros are needed? Why
> isn't just every CPU/FPU type marked as supported?
I have no idea for those macros. Some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64009
--- Comment #2 from Shanyao Chen ---
ok, aarch64 target has reported on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64011
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >aarch64 also have the same problem
Please file that separately since it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63990
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64011
Bug ID: 64011
Summary: Fail to compile pr48335-2.c on big-endian aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 34062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34062&action=edit
Proposed patch
I'm now testing the attached patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
Bug ID: 64010
Summary: [msp430-elf] struct function dereference clobbers
parameter passed to function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64009
Bug ID: 64009
Summary: ICE when compiling pr48335-2.c with
armeb-linux-gnueabi-gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
Bug ID: 64008
Summary: [SH] sh4-linux configured compiler rejects -m4-nofpu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64007
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #6 from H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64007
Bug ID: 64007
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63658
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Nov 21 00:47:50 2014
New Revision: 217900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63658
* pt.c (convert_nontype_argument): Call convert_from_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64006
Bug ID: 64006
Summary: __builtin_mul_overflow fails to signal overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63979
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Verbin ---
(In reply to vries from comment #8)
> (In reply to Ilya Verbin from comment #5)
> > (In reply to vries from comment #4)
> > > But I think the main difference is that the offload table and main (using
> > > the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63968
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63963
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, john at johnmaddock dot co.uk wrote:
> While we're opening cans of worms intmax_t should clearly be __int128...
> just saying!
Existing ABIs where intmax_t in libc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64005
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
When tracing the execution after the pool_test.go:81 breakpoint, the difference
between alphaev68-linux-gnu vs and x86_64-linux-gnu starts at the end of:
runfinq (dummy=) at
/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libgo/runt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Note, the patch will fix the errors in compiling pr27158.c and altivec-spat.c.
It will not fix the errors in compiling unonbon.c, which is an entirely
different problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34060
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34060&action=edit
Patch to provide loading 'easy' altivec constants into GPR registers
Some vector constants can be made easil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63959
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 20 21:51:04 2014
New Revision: 217893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63959
* tree.c (trivially_copyable_p): Check for CP_TYPE_VO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64005
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64005
Bug ID: 64005
Summary: make check FAIL: sync
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63979
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ilya Verbin from comment #5)
> (In reply to vries from comment #4)
> > But I think the main difference is that the offload table and main (using
> > the offload table) are now in the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63979
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34059&action=edit
ltrans1.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63979
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34058
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34058&action=edit
ltrans0.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63673
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64004
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63673
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63673
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc |powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64004
Bug ID: 64004
Summary: [5 Regressio] Build error in tree-ssa-loop-niter.c in
maybe_lower_iteration_bound
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60580
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #8 from Wilc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #15 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I think what Ian is saying is that mechanism to rebuild packages in this way
doesn't work with gccgo (and probably never should?)
Now I'm finally understanding this. Originally with gc the net pac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #9 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #7)
> >
> > If I remember correctly, the blocks issue is problematic because of the
> > blocks runtime's licen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #5 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Running valgrind with --track-origins=yes shows:
==9952== Uninitialised value was created by a heap allocation
==9952==at 0x4A0645D: malloc (in
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #4 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #3)
> fwiw, "insn" seems to be:
>
> (jump_insn:TI 10 4 56 2 (set (pc)
> (if_then_else (eq (reg:CCGC 17 flags)
> (const_int 0 [0]))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #3 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
fwiw, "insn" seems to be:
(jump_insn:TI 10 4 56 2 (set (pc)
(if_then_else (eq (reg:CCGC 17 flags)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(label_ref 29)
(pc)))
/home/d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #2 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW, line 6236 of i386.md is here:
6229 (define_insn "*subv4_1"
6230[(set (reg:CCO FLAGS_REG)
6231 (eq:CCO (minus:
6232 (sign_extend:
6233
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #1 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Marking as "Blocks" bug 63854, since I'd prefer to get the jit entirely clean
under valgrind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Bug ID: 64003
Summary: valgrind complains about get_attr_length_nobnd in
insn-attrtab.c from i386.md
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63986
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think you were mostly lucky
And exactly that's why I'd better not rely on combine dreaming up the parallel
pattern if I want to control the instruction (sequence)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 34056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34056&action=edit
Untested fix
I'm testing this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64002
--- Comment #1 from Roger Ferrer Ibanez ---
Created attachment 34055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34055&action=edit
Small testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64002
Bug ID: 64002
Summary: Braced initialization of unknown bound array of
nondependent type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63979
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Verbin ---
(In reply to vries from comment #4)
> But I think the main difference is that the offload table and main (using
> the offload table) are now in the same partition. I don't know whether
> that's by design or acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63979
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Can you reproduce this with the trunk patch kit I posted internally?
> gomp-4_0-branch is somewhat out of date wrt offloading.
No, it does not reproduce that way.
The split falls somewhat differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63998
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> If so, it would probably need
>
> // { dg-additional-options "-Wl,-undefined,dynamic_lookup" { target
> *-*-darwin* } }
> // { dg-additional-options "-Wl,-flat_namespace" { target *-*-darwin[89]* }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63694
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11/20/2014 7:45 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this fixed now?
No.
I have a patch which adds the necessary declaration checks to configure.ac
but have been very busy recently wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63885
--- Comment #3 from listcrawler at gmail dot com ---
I tested the latest revision this morning and all my tests passed. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63981
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Thu Nov 20 17:14:09 2014
New Revision: 217889
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217889&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-20 Andrew Pinski
PR ipa/63981
PR ipa/63982
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63982
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Thu Nov 20 17:14:09 2014
New Revision: 217889
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217889&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-20 Andrew Pinski
PR ipa/63981
PR ipa/63982
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63982
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Fixed. I put 63981 in the changelog.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63981
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Thu Nov 20 17:12:02 2014
New Revision: 217888
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217888&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-20 Andrew Pinski
PR ipa/63981
* ipa-polymorp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
John Maddock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at johnmaddock dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64001
Bug ID: 64001
Summary: gccgo: crash on stack splitting
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53132
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
I guess we need an updated reproducer - ideally not including std headers -
because the original one now is simply accepted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tejas Belagod from comment #7)
> I tried this, but it still doesn't seem to fold for aarch64.
>
> So, here is the DOM trace for aarch64:
>
> Optimizing statement a = *.LC0;
Why do we get LC0 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63997
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The testcase uses -shared at link time which is supposed to build a shared
> object and generate an external (unresolved) reference to _master.
Adding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63998
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63997
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63998
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe the testcase misses { dg-require-weak "" }? Not sure if that works for
lto.exp though - can you check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63997
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase uses -shared at link time which is supposed to build a shared
object and generate an external (unresolved) reference to _master. Why is
that (/* { dg-extra-ld-options { -shared } } */) not work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63998
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin1*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64000
Bug ID: 64000
Summary: internal compiler error on lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63870
--- Comment #2 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cbaylis
Date: Thu Nov 20 16:26:54 2014
New Revision: 217885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217885&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63870
* config/aarch64/aarch64-bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63956
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Of course. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #7 from Tejas Belagod ---
I tried this, but it still doesn't seem to fold for aarch64.
So, here is the DOM trace for aarch64:
Optimizing statement a = *.LC0;
LKUP STMT a = *.LC0 with .MEM_3(D)
LKUP STMT *.LC0 = a with .MEM_3(D)
Opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63823
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931
--- Comment #6 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Author: charlet
Date: Thu Nov 20 16:17:12 2014
New Revision: 217884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/63931
* gnatvsn.ads (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63995
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
I had a successful bootstrap with instrumentation some time ago but it's not
performed regularly.
We are extending regression testing for instrumentation now and coverage should
become better.
This particul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63999
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63956
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I thought you can call constexpr functions outside of constexpr contexts with
non-constant arguments and they are executed then as any other function, so not
instrumenting would mean you'd miss undefined beh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63999
Bug ID: 63999
Summary: Explcit conversion operators are not considered for
explicit cast using brace
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63956
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
BTW, wouldn't it make sense to not instrument things in constexpr functions?
It is not always possible, but at least in cp/ we could skip instrumentation if
DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (current_function_decl)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63823
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The patch was committed as a part of latest rematerialization patches. So the
trunk has a fix for this. It would be nice to confirm the fix on the trunk and
close the PR in the case of confirmation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63995
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 34052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34052&action=edit
reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63998
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63998
Bug ID: 63998
Summary: gcc.dg/lto/pr60820 fails on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60111
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 20 16:03:16 2014
New Revision: 217883
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217883&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-20 Segher Boessenkool
PR target/60111
* config/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63997
Bug ID: 63997
Summary: gcc.dg/lto/pr61526 failing on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63997
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55914
Balakrishnan B changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||balakrishnan.erode at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63897
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63979
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Can you reproduce this with the trunk patch kit I posted internally?
gomp-4_0-branch is somewhat out of date wrt offloading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39419
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #14 from Yohei Ueda ---
I am not the original author, so my description may be inaccurate.
> why isn't this "fallback" code always built for GO and available
> to run instead of waiting until it hits this situation and then
> built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63977
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to clyon from comment #4)
> On aarch64, I have noticed that the following tests FAIL after r217646:
That is recorded as bug 63971 and just a testsuite issue. In that the return is
no longer duplica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
--- Comment #12 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Thu Nov 20 14:29:41 2014
New Revision: 217858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217858&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-20 Teresa Johnson
Backport r217522 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61610
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
clyon at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63977
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Nov 20 14:13:04 2014
New Revision: 217853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217853&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63977
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_static_chain): Reinstate th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63942
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn ---
It still occurred as of [trunk revision 217822]
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
