https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65286
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65367
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
From PR64342 comment 7:
Register allocation seems to progress similarly, up until this message in
reload, which seems to be directly related to the r216154 patch:
...
Spill r86 after risky
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65343
--- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Maybe we want to placement-new the mutexes into a buffer so they are never
destroyed, although on mingw that will show up as leaked resources at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 10 11:16:33 2015
New Revision: 221318
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221318root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3, 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Funnily apart from the IPA inline summary updating issue the next important
time-hog is basic-block splitting we do for inlining a call. This is because
split_block moves the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
To some extent BZHI is a special case of BEXTR, but I'm afraid any
generalization is much harder due to the weirdo encoding of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Mar 10 09:50:41 2015
New Revision: 221316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221316root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65296
* config.gcc (extra_options)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder why we have split_bb_on_noreturn_calls in cfg-cleanup rather than in
fixup_cfg. It's quite expensive, walking all stmts and calling
gimple_call_noreturn_p which is very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
npl at chello dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
For zero_extract RTL we require that the POS and LEN arguments are in the
right ranges, while bextr allows any values, and either uses 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65370
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65365
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unfortunately https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02357.html hasn't
been checked in yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
Bug ID: 65377
Summary: [5.0 Regression] cpp attribute check ala clang fails
to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
--- Comment #6 from npl at chello dot at ---
(In reply to npl from comment #3)
1) It simply shouldnt fail.
2) this is a generic header for C and C++.
__has_cpp_attribute(clang::fallthrough) should resolve to 0 and not fail.
This is a bug in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
--- Comment #8 from npl at chello dot at ---
This (and the Iso recommendation) doesnt answer the question whether the
__has_cpp_attribute macro should be defined for C sources either (it seems
illogical to me).
Guess its undefined and not a bug,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The offset between the CFA and e FRAME object is now 0x90 bytes. So
because of alignment constraints, I think we cannot assume we can have a
constant offset (even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
For zero_extract RTL we require that the POS and LEN arguments are in the
right ranges,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65370
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65367
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
Probably I didn't form the question in the right way - I was trying to point
out, if we also describe BEXTR without unspec (in a similar way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65370
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65363
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
FRE can only eliminate the dominated one (obviously), so the first one is
the one prevailing.
I don't understand that.
Say we have load A (loading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So in gimple_expand_calls_inline we could look only at BBs last stmt for the
actual inlining but for the rest just do the basic-block splitting. And then
perform that walk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65365
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok with me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65365
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65377
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Use the proper check if you are want check if you are compiling c++ code first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #42 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #41)
I really don't want libbacktrace to be processor-dependent. That makes all
uses of it more complex for no significant gain. Maybe we should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #23 from Sven sven.koehler at gmail dot com ---
FYI: I have asked the llvm folks to add a warning to their compiler for the
when a pointer to a member of a packed struct is assigned to an ordinary
pointer with higher alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65286
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 13:54:11 2015
New Revision: 221324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221324root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65286
* config/rs6000/t-linux:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #24 from Sven sven.koehler at gmail dot com ---
Comment #4 mentions typedef int myint __attribute__((aligned(1)));
That shouldn't even work. The GCC documentation on Type Attributes mentions
that The aligned attribute can only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #6)
Created attachment 35001 [details]
workaround
You might like to consider this patch that effectively reverts r210201 for
Darwin. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
permitted? (i.e. modifying %1, which is an input operand)
Yes. You're outputting assembly, practically anything goes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
James Greenhalgh jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35001
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35001action=edit
workaround
You might like to consider this patch that effectively reverts r210201 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65286
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 13:43:44 2015
New Revision: 221322
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221322root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65286
* config/rs6000/t-linux:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #43 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
I'm getting confused. I think I need to talk about one thing at a time.
You say that libbacktrace is returning incorrect line numbers. That obviously
needs to be fixed. When does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
As far as fixing the real underlying problem goes, I'm not so familiar with the
darwin support that I can state with certainty that you need to fix movdi_low
and friends.
It might help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65286
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 10 12:44:01 2015
New Revision: 221321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221321root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-09 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65367
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced:
int
foo (char *p)
{
return *((const char *) ) - *p;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, is:
(define_insn movdi_low_st
[(set (mem:DI (lo_sum:DI (match_operand:DI 1 gpc_reg_operand b,b,b)
(match_operand 2 Y,,)))
(match_operand:DI 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65366
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
[patch] PR other/65366: Fix gdbhooks.py for GDB with Python3
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00502.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
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=44563
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #27)
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65286
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 13:52:48 2015
New Revision: 221323
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221323root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65286
* config/rs6000/t-linux:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regression] |[4.8/4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65333
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 65332 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65332
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
Bug ID: 65380
Summary: [5 Regression] LTO: ICE in add_symbol_to_partition_1,
at lto/lto-partition.c:158
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65333
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672
--- Comment #42 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Mar 10 16:37:53 2015
New Revision: 221326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221326root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/25672
* configure.ac: Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65127
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
So it seems current_class_ptr is no longer just NULL or a PARM_DECL, but can
be also ADDR_EXPR of a PLACEHOLDER_EXPR. Dunno if the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65333
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 10 17:44:48 2015
New Revision: 221328
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221328root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65333
DR 1558
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65381
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65333
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65379
Bug ID: 65379
Summary: ifcvt does not clean up dead instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65378
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
[...]
Message in question is here in ipa-devirt.c:
if (!warning_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (TYPE_NAME (t1)), OPT_Wodr,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35004
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35004action=edit
two.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65381
Bug ID: 65381
Summary: ICE during array result, assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
seen when enabling mpx and x32 multilibs
looks like the configure.tgt is too permissive
x86_64-*-linux* | i?86-*-linux*)
libtool: compile: /home/packages/gcc/5/gcc-5-5-20150310/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/packages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
While I haven't isolated it yet I suspect a bug in nettle and not one in gcc,
for at least three reasons:
First, the failures are insensitive to optimization levels. Second, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see this with -O3, not -O3. working to get a reduced test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #8 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
May be the patch should be submitted to fort...@gcc.gnu.org (for next stage1).
I'd be happy if this could be resolved. Should I submit or someone with more
clout among the gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65367
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65378
Bug ID: 65378
Summary: Tweak to wording of -Wodr message
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #45 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
If we change the PC returned by backtrace_full, and then use that changed PC to
look up file/line information, we might get different results. That seems
clear. My next question is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I sent a patch to the mailing list about this. If we don't want to apply it and
we want to be super-conservative, we can indeed simply do this, with a comment,
in my opinion:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #44 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
If we do the increment of the pc to fix it in the callback, here is how that
happens:
- backtrace_full gets the pc and decrements by 1
- backtrace_full calls backtrace_pcinfo to look up the file,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65367
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Mar 10 15:57:45 2015
New Revision: 221325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221325root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65367
* ubsan.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
/pthaugen/install/gcc-host-libs --without-ppl --without-cloog
--enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150310 (experimental) [trunk revision 221324] (GCC)
[pthaugen@igoo testsuite]$ ~/install/gcc/trunk/bin/g++ -std=c++98 -O2
-ftree-vectorize -fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 |[4.8/4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #48 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #47)
We have to separate backtrace_full and backtrace_simple, which are part of
the libbacktrace library, from functions like runtime_callers which are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #49 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
libbacktrace returns the line number that you actually care about: the line
number of the call instruction. There is no question that that is correct.
You say that it is a problem if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #47 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
We have to separate backtrace_full and backtrace_simple, which are part of the
libbacktrace library, from functions like runtime_callers which are part of
libgo. The libbacktrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #5)
Sorry, I can not reproduce the bug on the today trunk. Probably it was
fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64896
--- Comment #11 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Tue Mar 10 19:20:30 2015
New Revision: 221333
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221333root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2015-03-10 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64441
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Tue Mar 10 18:41:46 2015
New Revision: 221330
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221330root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64441
* include/bits/regex.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
0005-Postpone-expanding-va_arg-until-pass_stdarg.patch
Submitted for stage1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01332.html
Pinged:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 10 19:39:05 2015
New Revision: 221334
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221334root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65127
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 19:10:43 2015
New Revision: 221332
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221332root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65127
* parser.c (parsing_nsdmi):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65321
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 06:36:50 2015
New Revision: 221298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221298root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/65321
* cfgexpand.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65120
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65321
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #23 from collison at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: collison
Date: Tue Mar 10 07:34:20 2015
New Revision: 221302
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221302root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-10 Michael Collison michael.colli...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65120
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 10 06:38:57 2015
New Revision: 221299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221299root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/65120
* c-common.c
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
