https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68773
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #7 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> insufficient SMS testsuite coverage.
Not sure it's helpful, but 3 weeks ago I succesfully reg-strapped some bunch of
my SMS patches including this fix on x86-64 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
Bug ID: 69291
Summary: [6 Regression] wrong code at -O1 for
ruby-2.3.0/regcomp.c:985:compile_length_quantifier_nod
e()
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Statu
: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160114 (experimental) [trunk revision 232363] (GCC)
$ g++-trunk -c -m64 abc.cc
abc.cc:1:20: error: flexible array member 'str::x' in an otherwise empty
'struct str'
struct str { int x[];};
^
abc.cc:1:8: note: in the definition of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
It can be made to work (for example) by increasing the value of x to 32 but I
don't yet understand what the powerpc64le back end does differently from, say
the x86_64 back end, that it doesn't work as is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67565
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69270
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jan 15 02:45:44 2016
New Revision: 232399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69270
* tree-ssa-dom.c (ssa_name_has_bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #11 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #10)
> Both the aarch64 and arm code looks funny to me, as the last add seems to be
> using an input register that was never set, but I don't know the aarch64 and
> arm vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Godard ---
Twelve years and counting? :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
--- Comment #2 from Paul le roux ---
(In reply to Paul le roux from comment #1)
> When copying the timings got switched around the --generate-profile is the
> faster one.
Ignore that. I just quickly looked at the total usage, but that includes t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
Paul le roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xonar.leroux at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #10 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #7)
> > > The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69289
Bug ID: 69289
Summary: Compiling without --profile-generate causes longer
execution time (-O3)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #7)
> > The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
> >
> > I can look at fixing the arm side of things if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 37348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37348&action=edit
Proposed patch
Matthias, please apply the attached patch and see if it clears the bug for you.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #7)
> The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
>
> I can look at fixing the arm side of things if we need an md patch.
Try my attached patch and s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
>__glibcxx_assert(__first == __last || !(*__first < *__last));
It wouldn't make much sense to assert that the inputs to a generic sort
algorithm are not al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20407
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69275
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
For now, I have reverted the patch that causes the problem.
When I get back into the office on January 19th, I will look at ways to fix
this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60323
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #7 from Jim Wilson ---
The simplified testcases fail on arm if you use -O3 -mfpu=neon.
I can look at fixing the arm side of things if we need an md patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68490
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Release managers' call whether or not to backport the fix. "6" regression
marker cleared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 37347
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37347&action=edit
Patch which causes us not to lower the VEC_COND_EXPR
Expand already knows how to expand VEC_COND_EXPR (without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
--- Comment #5 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
> Need to apply Aurelien's patch - looks like that's slipped through the
> cracks.
What was missing to the patch was a testcase which compiles on all platf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 14 23:12:53 2016
New Revision: 232395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/69014
* loop-doloop.c (record_reg_sets): New.
(doloop_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The vect generic issue is really gimple_buildN should be using
STRIP_USELESS_TYPE_CONVERSION rather than STRIP_NOPS. Note this code should
assuming the fold_buildN would not produce a NOP_EXPR (cast) from on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I see. Although the PHI itself is not directly modified, a new PHI is
introduced in the same block. During this process we may alter the incoming
control flow to the block (introducing a new block along
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69288
Bug ID: 69288
Summary: [concepts] Subsumption failure with constrained member
functions of class template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00993.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically the problem is the vect lower was not updated for the changes for
vector compares that was done.
Hmm, vec_merge is no longer correctly documented either:
@findex vec_merge
@item (vec_merge:@var{m}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
The stmt_cand_map is *not* losing its integrity. Instead, it appears that a
phi statement changes its address at some point during the SLSR pass, even
though it hasn't been modified (SFAICT).
There are two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Confirmed with today's top of trunk.
>
> But the test doesn't seem valid. It only initializes the first element of
> the VLA (using A::A(int)). The rest are ini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69048
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69048
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jan 14 22:23:09 2016
New Revision: 232393
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232393&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[cilkplus] Fix cilk_spawn gimplification bug (PR cilkplus/69048)
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68847
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
vector(4) _6;
vector(4) int vect_c_1.7;
_6 = vect__5.5_1 != vect_cst__14;
vect_c_1.7_2 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_6, vect_cst__15, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }>;
What I don't understand is why vectlowering is happenin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68964
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69287
Bug ID: 69287
Summary: libstdc++-v3/include/debug/functions.h:297: bad
comparison ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69286
Bug ID: 69286
Summary: trunk/libgcc/config/s390/tpf-unwind.h: 28 redundant
condition ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68964
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 14 21:36:12 2016
New Revision: 232390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69272
PR tree-opt/68964
* trans-mem.c (tm_log_emit_stmt): Fix un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 14 21:36:12 2016
New Revision: 232390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69272
PR tree-opt/68964
* trans-mem.c (tm_log_emit_stmt): Fix un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69285
Bug ID: 69285
Summary: libstdc++-v3/include/parallel/partition.h: 2 * array
index check after use ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12255
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66680
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Thu Jan 14 20:57:35 2016
New Revision: 232388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-14 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/66680
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Sure, I was already planning to do some of it today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69284
Bug ID: 69284
Summary: [5.3] SIGSEGV when running 32-bit result on MinGW when
linked dynamically
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this will require moving out the common_handle_option handling of
-fsanitize{,-recover}= arguments (parsing them into a bitmask) into a separate
function, because lto-wrapper seems to look at unparse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69283
Bug ID: 69283
Summary: Auto deduction fails when ADL is required
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68773
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Jan 14 20:01:39 2016
New Revision: 232384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Mark symbols in offload tables with force_output in read_offload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69244
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:58:17 2016
New Revision: 232383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/67509
* gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_7.f90: For out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69244
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:57:34 2016
New Revision: 232382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/69244
* lra-eliminations.c (move_plus_up): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
--- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson ---
With an aarch64-linux-gnu cross compiler:
palantir:2654$ ./xgcc -B./ -O3 -S tmp.c
tmp.c: In function 'fn1':
tmp.c:3:5: error: incorrect type of vector CONSTRUCTOR elements
int fn1(void) {
^~~
{_38, _110,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282
Bug ID: 69282
Summary: aarch64/armhf ICE on SPEC2006 464.h264ref at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Target Milestone|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66627
Bug 66627 depends on bug 66779, which changed state.
Bug 66779 Summary: jit segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66779
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #12 from Lauri Kasanen ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
"To build all languages in a cross-compiler or other configuration where
3-stage bootstrap is not performed, you need to start with an existing GCC
binary (ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:24:28 2016
New Revision: 232380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
powerpc: Add some XFAILs to 20050603-3.c (PR68803)
In r230167 I mad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
Bug 68819 depends on bug 69177, which changed state.
Bug 69177 Summary: [6 Regression] Bit-packing optimization makes it too easy to
have location_t >= LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69275
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |meissner at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:10:17 2016
New Revision: 232379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69177 and PR c++/68819: libcpp fallbacks and
-Wmisleadi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:10:17 2016
New Revision: 232379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69177 and PR c++/68819: libcpp fallbacks and
-Wmislead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
For x86, we have one pattern, and it has things in the correct order.
For aarch64, the only correct pattern is add3_carryin_alt2.
The nesting and canonicalization of all the others are bogus.
But powerp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323
--- Comment #11 from Michael Collison ---
Andrew,
It may be the case that is not a win on all microarchitectures however I think
we should allow the vectorizer to (optionally) generate the vld3 and deal with
the differences via the cost models.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #26 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Certainly adding TARGET_MACHO is Ok by me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I would expect them to if they ran it in 64-bit mode since the test in 5.3
looks for the "inm" pattern which matches the rlwinm instruction in gcc's
output. But in 5.3 and before the test was constrained to i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
If you're confident it's a dup, go ahead and close it as such. I usually look
to see which has the best state and keep that one open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68976
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37344
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37344&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
It appears that the stmt_cand_map, which is a hash_map from gimple*s to
candidates, must be getting overwritten. At the time things go south, we have
done a lookup on the var _1338 using base_cand_from_table.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69008
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do 4.9.2 and 5.3.0 actually fail the testcase? Huh?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69281
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69281
Bug ID: 69281
Summary: gfortran ICE on temporary array in function call with
-fstack-arrays -fopenmp
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69262
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69262
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 14 17:46:25 2016
New Revision: 232376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69262
* c-decl.c (grokdeclarator): Provide more in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69280
Bug ID: 69280
Summary: Where did -fno-plt go?
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68936
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68648
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68648
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Jan 14 17:27:42 2016
New Revision: 232375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][4.9 backport] Fix PR target/68648
PR target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68188
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Pilarczyk ---
Still not fixed in 5.3.0, tested here:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69266
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to tprince from comment #2)
> It is possible to bootstrap by configure --disable-libstdcxx. Then it is
> possible to configure and build (but not make check?) in libstdc++-v3. I'm
> not sure of t
1 - 100 of 284 matches
Mail list logo
