https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What command line options are used?
With explicit -ftemplate-depth=25 (or even 27) it indeed fails, succeeds with
28, but the default is 900 AFAIK. Have those command line options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 18:09:59 2015
New Revision: 220650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220650root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR debug/55541
* cp-tree.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #5 from Bin Fan bin.x.fan at oracle dot com ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
(In reply to Bin Fan from comment #0)
2. g++ tries to make lock-free property per-type, but the libatomic.so
implementation does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
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=65033
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #2 from Matěj Cepl mcepl at cepl dot eu ---
Created attachment 34741
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34741action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, the default is 900. (C++11 recommends 1024 AFAIK.)
From what I can see they used
/usr/lib64/ccache/g++ -v -save-temps -g3 -O0 -DDEBUG -ftemplate-depth-25
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bin Fan from comment #5)
So after the fix, atomic_is_lock_free will always return 0 for
size=3,align=1 atomic struct objects?
Yes.
I understand currently libatomic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #12 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
I should add that for purposes of Go, it's not all that important that
libbacktrace does not yet handle sibling calls, because the Go compiler turns
on -fno-optimize-sibling-calls by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Feb 12 19:30:53 2015
New Revision: 220654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220654root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-12 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works with r220637 - may well be a dup of PR65003. Checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 12:17:41 2015
New Revision: 220645
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220645root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-02-09 Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64837
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #18)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #16)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
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=61889
--- Comment #38 from Terry Guo terry.guo at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #37)
I confirm that in libgcc we still have an issue ...
Could you please make a new report for libgcc's libgcov-util.c for it.
Thanks in advance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
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=65017
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Appears to work with r220637. Checking if dup of PR65003.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works with r220637 - may well be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
Taking. I think check_format_types needs a small tweak to look thru
NOP_EXPRs.
Well, more like do some lame VR computation and not warn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I reproduced this with an out-of-date trunk build, but using today's trunk it
compiles OK, so seems to be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Any updates regarding this problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65019
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
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=65039
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Bug ID: 65040
Summary: [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
May well be - works with r220637
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
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=65040
Frank Ch. Eigler fche at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fche at redhat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64884
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 21:33:37 2015
New Revision: 220664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220664root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/64884
* g++.dg/tm/pr47573.C: Only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Kirill, you are correct WRT propagation of b for i. Prior to DOM1 we have:
;; basic block 3, loop depth 1, count 0, freq 9100, maybe hot
;;prev block 2, next block 4, flags:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65044
Bug ID: 65044
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in contains_struct_check with
-fsanitize=address -fcheck-pointer-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
And for GCC 5, ISTM the question that hasn't been answered, particularly with
regard to the second reproducer is whether or this is a regression for the
overall performance of that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65000
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 21:30:56 2015
New Revision: 220663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220663root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65000
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32089
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 12 20:21:34 2015
New Revision: 220656
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220656root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/64959
* parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Feb 12 21:06:41 2015
New Revision: 220659
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220659root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-12 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 12 22:44:38 2015
New Revision: 220666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220666root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/64898
* mangle.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
Bug ID: 65045
Summary: ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64966
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20705
Bug 20705 depends on bug 14300, which changed state.
Bug 14300 Summary: -pthread doesn't define _REENTRANT in preprocessor on
alpha-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14300
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14300
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49316
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|alpha-dec-osf5.1b |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64898
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65048
Bug ID: 65048
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE in add_phi_args_after_copy_edge, at
tree-cfg.c on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49242
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44251
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65047
Bug ID: 65047
Summary: [c++17] Add support for nested namespace defintions.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Sigh. We can't do the propagation, even if we recognize the mw_9 default
definition represents an undefined value -- because doing so would result in a
use that is not dominated by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037
Bug ID: 65037
Summary: cpp inserts spurious newlines
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #5 from conchur at web dot de ---
Thanks for the patches. I've rebuild the gcc package (which took the whole
afternoon + night on my machine) and can verify that the mini testcases are now
working perfectly fine.
I've also tried this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037
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=61889
--- Comment #36 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, I guess that you missed to reconfigure gcc. By checking current source
is the include of ftw.h guarded by HAVE_FTW_H check, which get defined by
configure if header is found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
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=32667
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
One way to fix this is to emit the memcpy as
if (p != q)
memcpy (p, q, ...);
but of course that comes at a cost in code-size and runtime for no obvious good
reason (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65034
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Bug ID: 65038
Summary: Unable to find ftw.h for libgcov-util.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
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=61889
Terry Guo terry.guo at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terry.guo at arm dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65034
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:45:27 2015
New Revision: 220640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220640root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65014
* fold-const.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #37 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I confirm that in libgcc we still have an issue ...
Could you please make a new report for libgcc's libgcov-util.c for it.
Thanks in advance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
Bug ID: 65039
Summary: g++ 5 segmentation fault when compiling with -O2
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
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=65033
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See PR54005 for some of the history.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65019
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:48:44 2015
New Revision: 220641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220641root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65019
* ubsan.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:48:56 2015
New Revision: 220642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220642root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-11 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64823
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64705
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 13 05:44:46 2015
New Revision: 220676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220676root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64705
* tree-ssa-loop-niter.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64823
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alserkli at inbox
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
Vlad,
What's the rationale behind the 50% probability cutoff for forming an EBB?
For the purposes of inheritance, ISTM you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
So we don't thread this case because of the limits we place on the number of
statements in the duplicated block.
If --param max-jump-thread-duplication-stmts=16 is added to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 13 05:26:37 2015
New Revision: 220675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220675root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/64956
* c-opts.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64705
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since it works on gcc 3.4, so I consider this as a regression and applied the
patch. Should be fixed now.
Hi Vlad, could you please help me verify that the original benchmark is fixed
too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57822
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 13 02:57:03 2015
New Revision: 220673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220673root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-12 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8)
And for GCC 5, ISTM the question that hasn't been answered, particularly
with regard to the second reproducer is whether or this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Feb 13 04:52:45 2015
New Revision: 220674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220674root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl/32219
gcc/
* cgraphunit.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Shapero shapero at uw dot edu ---
Everything works now, thanks Paul!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65046
Bug ID: 65046
Summary: -Wabi-tag doesn't warn about variables or function
return types
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
