http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59101
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 14 08:11:36 2013
New Revision: 204774
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204774root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59101
* config/i386/i386.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59101
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 14 08:14:24 2013
New Revision: 204775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204775root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59101
* config/i386/i386.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58533
--- Comment #3 from abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: abutcher
Date: Thu Nov 14 08:26:21 2013
New Revision: 204776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204776root=gccview=rev
Log:
Added testcase for 58533, fixed by rev 204714.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57491
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Nov 14 08:33:21 2013
New Revision: 204777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204777root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/57491
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59096
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59094
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59090
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59089
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59086
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59085
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59126
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59127
Bug ID: 59127
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r204708 breaks bootstrap with Ada
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #7 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Clang supports -fsanitize=leak which simply links a standalone lsan library
(no instrumentation at compile time required).
Perhaps gcc can add such option too.
I agree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We already re-fold whenever we fold the object-size stmt via fold_stmt looking
up the def of the address - inlining for example triggers this. We'd later
pick up more opportunities
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59127
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #7)
-fno-omit-frame-pointer: that may or may not be a good idea, I don't know.
I seem to need it to get good backtraces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59122
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59127
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #9 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #8)
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #7)
-fno-omit-frame-pointer: that may or may not be a good idea, I don't know.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #7)
Clang supports -fsanitize=leak which simply links a standalone lsan
library
(no instrumentation at compile time required).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #11 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am not an expert in the gcc build system so this will have to be done by
someone else. Also, I am heavily frightened by the amount of differences
between the clang and gcc
-gnu
Configured with: /home/jweil/gcc49/trunk/configure --program-suffix=-4.9
--enable-checking=release --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131114 (experimental) [trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #9)
We have work-in-progress to make the symbolizer in-process as opposed to
the current one that is out-of-process (uses pipes):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59056
--- Comment #9 from Walter Mascarenhas walter.mascarenhas at gmail dot com ---
1) I just wrote that Richard's paragraph, IN ITSELF,
does not explain why things are as they are. I did not
write that there aren't other reasons to justify the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||samsonov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59128
Bug ID: 59128
Summary: I use #define to set ALPHA to a constant and then (for
convenience) define ALPHA2 = ALPHA*ALPHA
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58937
--- Comment #11 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Evgeniy Stepanov from comment #10)
We don't intercept signal() on Android
This is just an implementation detail, this fails just as well:
$ cat repro.c
#include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58937
--- Comment #12 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Evgeniy Stepanov from comment #8)
... one of the ASan interceptors
that does ENSURE_ASAN_INITED().
Arguably, all interceptors should do it.
Can we force all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59128
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59128
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #14 from Alexey Samsonov samsonov at google dot com ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #13)
Why don't you use libbacktrace for that? It is not GPL, so Apple and other
I *think* we evaluated libbacktrace over 2 years
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Strangely, head works: http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/CnsddYRxUohlCGF1
Although mine still gets the error.
I did something that might have helped for 4.9. If I can prove that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59129
Bug ID: 59129
Summary: assert fail for tree.c:4150
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #16 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Evgeniy Stepanov from comment #15)
No need, I'm fixing it now.
Sorry for bothering but is this in compiler-rt trunk yet?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #17 from Evgeniy Stepanov eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #16)
(In reply to Evgeniy Stepanov from comment #15)
No need, I'm fixing it now.
Sorry for bothering but is this in compiler-rt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It doesn't work that easily. But we could refine a folding result without
actually doing the folding by adding an additional argument to the builtin
which serves as a (sofar) known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59129
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is a already fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57756
Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57756
--- Comment #7 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31217
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31217action=edit
Additioanl patch for r203634.
See my comments.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #7)
Additionally, it seems important to have -g -fno-omit-frame-pointer in the
options. Maybe gcc should add these options for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59130
Bug ID: 59130
Summary: Inline(d) or static functions not registered in
transactional clone table
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59127
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is a dup of bug 59109.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59131
Bug ID: 59131
Summary: Compiler segfaults while generating code to save local
variables in transactional section
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #16 from Sergey Matveev earthdok at google dot com ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #11)
Easily doable of course, but we should create liblsan as shared
library in that case too. What combination of those do you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59127
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Most likely it is. However, the actual failure message is different, so until
I verify the fix addresses both instances, let's keep this open.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #17 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Sergey Matveev from comment #16)
Under the current behavior -fsanitize=address,leak is equivalent to
-fsanitize=address.
We've considered other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59133
Bug ID: 59133
Summary: [4.9 regression] ICE after r204219 on SPEC2006
435.gromacs.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59132
Bug ID: 59132
Summary: Missing aggressive-loop-optimisation warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59133
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31219
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31219action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to be compiled with -m32 -march=core-avx2 -O3 -ffast-math
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
Bug ID: 59134
Summary: Infinite loop between store_fixed_bit_field and
store_split_bit_field with STRICT_ALIGNMENT
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59133
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
It is worth noting that -m32 option is also essential for reproducing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #18 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #17)
(In reply to Sergey Matveev from comment #16)
Under the current behavior -fsanitize=address,leak is equivalent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59133
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #19 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #18)
I don't think we've measured pure-lsan slowdown, but I expect it to be small.
asan/lsan bring in a different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #20 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I our simulation code, it looks like the overhead for leak checking is about
20%. I haven't done very careful measurements yet, since this is more or
less what we're willing to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #21 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #20)
I our simulation code, it looks like the overhead for leak checking is about
20%. I haven't done very careful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #44 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Hi Richard,
this 59143 issue is very similar to what Sandra encountered with her patch.
but it is not volatile in that example.
I can not reproduce that on the ARM.
But I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #16 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #15)
As of revision 204772, there are still problems on hppa-linux.
Does the following patch fix them? I don't know whether it creates more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #22 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #21)
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #20)
I our simulation code, it looks like the overhead for leak checking is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59122
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
This seems to work for me in the cross, but it is a hack in any case (before
and now with the patch).
I'll give your patch a try,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
OK, it took me a while to remember this (even though I put it in myself).
By default, g++ -std=c++11/1y intercepts numeric suffixes for C++11
user-defined literals.
By default
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ed Smith-Rowland from comment #7)
g++ is working as intended.
Thanks a lot for the investigation. Do you think the error message: unable to
find numeric literal operator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59135
Bug ID: 59135
Summary: Incorrect ambiguity in constexpr function overloads
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59094
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Balaji V. Iyer from comment #2)
Can you please confirm if the following patch works for you?
Yes, the patch works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59136
Bug ID: 59136
Summary: llvm-symbolizer shouldn't be started always
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59136
Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glider at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #13 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I was debugging this today:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15975
... and ran across this PR again.
GCC is still emitting a virtual destructor with no indication of
its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31221
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31221action=edit
gcc49-pr59061.patch
Untested patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59122
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
This seems to work for me in the cross, but it is a hack in any case (before
and now with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #17 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #16)
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #15)
As of revision 204772, there are still problems on hppa-linux.
Does the following patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
Another testcase:
= 8 =
extern char *bar[17];
int foo(int argc, char **argv)
{
int i;
int n = 0;
for (i = 0; i argc; i++)
n++;
for (i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11/14/2013 12:26 PM, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Dave, can you try this patch to see if it cleans up the errors you're seeing?
I will try it later today when I get home.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58963
--- Comment #3 from Cong Hou congh at google dot com ---
Suppose there is a third-party complex library, which is written in the same
way as complex. Then GCC could not recognize that as complex type, and will
not use builtin calls to calculate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #19 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Someone on my team reported that our internal bootstrap tester is still
failing. It is failing due to the linux/mroute6.h header file not existing.
Our builds are occurring on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58963
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Cong Hou from comment #3)
Suppose there is a third-party complex library, which is written in the same
way as complex. Then GCC could not recognize that as complex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If I remove the
#include linux/mroute6.h
it still compiles just fine here on Fedora 19, looks like only the
linux/mroute.h
ioctls are instrumented.
Anyway, sounds to me like this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59099
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi, I have to leave today but I've posted some information about my
progress with an untested fix to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01649.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59122
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 14 18:28:43 2013
New Revision: 204801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204801root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59122
* asan.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57887
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Nov 14 20:16:51 2013
New Revision: 204818
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204818root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-11-14 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57887
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59137
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-11-14 00:00:00 |2013-11-13 0:00
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2
--- Comment #6 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Nov 14 21:26:09 2013
New Revision: 204823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204823root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-11-10 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58853
--- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Nov 14 21:26:09 2013
New Revision: 204823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204823root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-11-10 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58853
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Whops, wrong PR number in ChangeLog entry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59021
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56764
--- Comment #5 from congh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: congh
Date: Thu Nov 14 21:51:07 2013
New Revision: 204825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204825root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-14 Cong Hou co...@google.com
Backport from mainline
Configured with: /users/regehr/z/compiler-source/gcc/configure
--prefix=/users/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r204770-install
--enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131114 (experimental) (GCC)
-r204770-install
--enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131114 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59131
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59118
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59140
Bug ID: 59140
Summary: [C++11] Bogus error: use of deleted function ...
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Possibly related to PR58940
Google ref: b/11696404
Confirmed with current trunk:
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20131114 (experimental)
g++ -c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58940
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com ---
Re-confirmed with current trunk:
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20131114 (experimental)
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
