https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Mar 26 08:33:53 2015
New Revision: 221689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221689root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/63150
Backport from trunk 211857
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
Bug ID: 65578
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/builtin-bswap-1.c (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Test-cases that fail in this way:
...
src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/builtin-bswap-1.c:18:1: sorry, unimplemented:
Thumb-1 hard-float VFP ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
builtins.h has been already in 4.9, just contained far less info and thus has
been less important.
Quick check of new headers in toplevel directory that most likely aren't in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tightening the arm_arch_v6_ok test like this would fix the failure:
...
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index b57f545..75ca0a3 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And comparing the right now installed headers with what is in gcc/*.h gcc/*.def
reveals also:
addresses.h
asan.h
bb-reorder.h
builtin-attrs.def
builtins.h
builtin-types.def
cilk.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35103|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22501
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mandrew9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65571
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=47361
Avi Kivity a...@cloudius-systems.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65579
Bug ID: 65579
Summary: [C++11] gcc requires definition of a static constexpr
member even though it is not odr-used
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65519
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 26 09:26:26 2015
New Revision: 221690
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221690root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-26 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65544
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65562
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35144
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35144action=edit
gcc5-pr61176.patch
Patch to install all gcc/*.h and gcc/*.def headers, even when they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65568
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Issue is related to -fms-extensions. This option is for mingw targets on by
default. By the following patch issue in testsuite gets solved (it makes sense
to apply this patch for such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
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=65551
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65562
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65580
Bug ID: 65580
Summary: Dependency generation has a bug with absent generated
include-files in subdirectories
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65573
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Bug ID: 65581
Summary: testsuite lto issue: multiple definition of `main',
undefined reference to `WinMain'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65560
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=6
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35145
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35145action=edit
WIP patch
Added reduction example to testcases. Patch runs test-cases successfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65556
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65556
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65556
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65572
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65573
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65572
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65568
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65566
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
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=65566
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65582
Bug ID: 65582
Summary: testsuite lto issue: xgcc.exe: warning: '-x lto' after
last input file has no effect, fatal error: no input
files
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 26 13:19:59 2015
New Revision: 221694
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221694root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64715
* passes.def:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
So, can you try to schedule another
NEXT_PASS (pass_rebuild_cgraph_edges);
right after ubsan pass if that fixes it?
And then move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Or just teach ubsan pass to add cgraph edges for the calls it adds (I believe
it doesn't remove any calls, just adds them). Guess that should be cheaper
than scheduling another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65582
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
Huh, can you reproduce that with an installed compiler? It seems to simply
build a single source file with -flto. Maybe it's some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65582
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de ---
(In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #3)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
Huh, can you reproduce that with an installed compiler? It seems to simply
build a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65575
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot com ---
Confirmed and resolved in r221695.
Removed the check for trailing requires-clauses on non-function declarators.
This should make the presence of a trailing-requires clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
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=65581
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you try reducing to a minimal example? it would seem that int main() {
return 0; } should already fail this way?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
Bug ID: 65583
Summary: [5 Regression][UBSAN] ICE segfault in
inline_edge_summary
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
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=65560
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
legitimize_pe_coff_symbol is creating invalid RTX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65551
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=65583
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does Honzas patch Discover nothorow functions before into_ssa fix it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, that was clearly bogus. The Discover nothorow functions before into_ssa
doesn't fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65582
Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|testsuite lto issue:|[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|testsuite lto issue:|[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65582
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=64317
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
Can you try reducing to a minimal example? it would seem that int main() {
return 0; } should already fail this way?
test.c:
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Started with r221660, the following seems to fix it:
--- a/gcc/passes.c
+++ b/gcc/passes.c
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ public:
virtual bool gate (function *)
{
/* Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
--- Comment #18 from PaX Team pageexec at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
Created attachment 35144 [details]
gcc5-pr61176.patch
Patch to install all gcc/*.h and gcc/*.def headers, even when they aren't
listed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65580
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I would have expected an error ;) How can it possibly know which of the
default search paths for includes it should use?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65532
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, running the chkp pass queue for the sanitization doesn't make any sense.
So, most likely the problem is that ubsan pass? doesn't update cgraph edges or
something similar and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Doesn't make sense to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, pass_local_optimization_passes immediately runs
NEXT_PASS (pass_fixup_cfg);
NEXT_PASS (pass_rebuild_cgraph_edges);
which should be the only effect of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, can you try to schedule another
NEXT_PASS (pass_rebuild_cgraph_edges);
right after ubsan pass if that fixes it?
And then move that right before ubsan and see if it is broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
Can we close this?
I can't say now, sorry, but will be back on this in a week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65575
--- Comment #2 from Tom Honermann tom at honermann dot net ---
r221695 does correct the specific test case in comment 0. However, I'm still
seeing similar errors for function declarations that don't specify the return
type with a trailing return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 27 04:02:28 2015
New Revision: 221719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221719root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65076
* passes.def: Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also with early-inlining-insns=11 the statement count is smaller for mainline
(copmared to 4.9) until the pass bswap, it grows up in PRE (by about 1%) and
then it continues growing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
Bug ID: 65593
Summary: [5 Regression] internal compiler error: in
extract_insn, at recog.c:2343
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
When I've seen this before, it's been because the relocation processing in
applyRelocationsPPC in debug/elf/file.go is not working.
If you run the go command with the -x option, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
Bug ID: 65588
Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65586
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regression] |-fopenmp-simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
Bug ID: 65587
Summary: C package incomplete/not working for powerpc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Mar 26 17:51:57 2015
New Revision: 221698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221698root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/65587
debug/elf: apply relocations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35153
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35153action=edit
object file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
--- Comment #1 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35154
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35154action=edit
A little c-reduced preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
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=65536
--- Comment #45 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #42)
Hi,
I read linemap_line_start and I think I noticed few issues with respect
to overflows and lines being added randomly.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35151
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35151action=edit
output of cgo command
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Does the -Winvalid-pch flag give any extra information?
AFAICT no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
--- Comment #2 from EatDirt dirteat at gmail dot com ---
Sorry for the noise and thanks very much for the info.
I was completely unaware of the f2003 feature!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65584
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=65525
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 26 17:58:39 2015
New Revision: 221699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221699root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65525
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65525
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65154
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:51:58 2015
New Revision: 221704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221704root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65154
* init.c (build_vec_init): Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:59:08 2015
New Revision: 221708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221708root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58038
PR libstdc++/60421
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matthew Lai from comment #8)
Here is another case where this bug caused a hard-to-find problem -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65591
Bug ID: 65591
Summary: G++ should use default constructor for {}-init when
possible
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
