https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81240
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69026
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 69026, which changed state.
Bug 69026 Summary: dwarf2out.c:4295 warning:
‘finder[...]addr_table_entry_struct_union::label’ may be used uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69026
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> Well, -Og doesn't do any of the detailed analysis and optimization that
> would give the compiler the opportunity to eliminate the paths that result
> in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81197
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 16 00:40:14 2017
New Revision: 255735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255735=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-12-15 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83205
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 16 00:41:10 2017
New Revision: 255736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255736=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-12-15 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83358
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Dec 16 04:28:08 2017
New Revision: 255739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255739=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Markus Trippelsdorf
PR target/83358
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83437
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
-O0 has none of the analysis necessary and I believe you get no warnings at
all.
A minimum of -Og is needed, but -Og is inherently going to give many false
positives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83358
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 42145, which changed state.
Bug 42145 Summary: bogus "may be used uninitialized" (a || b converted to a|b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So this is "fixed" on the trunk.
The trunk now has the ability to track statements that will likely become dead
code as a result of jump threading. That's enough to get the provided samples
under the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #29 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Nevermind my last comment. Totally wrong. This is fixed on the trunk,
totally and completely by Aldy's changes.
The trunk changed in that it can thread the jump now because we'll be under
growth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82102
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 08:19:15 2017
New Revision: 255678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255678=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82128
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 08:19:15 2017
New Revision: 255678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255678=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42894
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42894=edit
Tentative patch fixing backend call sites
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82902
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 08:12:10 2017
New Revision: 255677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255677=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 08:12:10 2017
New Revision: 255677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255677=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82765
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 08:12:10 2017
New Revision: 255677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255677=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82697
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 08:12:10 2017
New Revision: 255677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255677=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.1
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82034
--- Comment #3 from Oscar Molin ---
The same thing applies to SMMULR, possibly others as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, in theory multiplication by 3 isn't that expensive on i?86/x86_64,
because lea can do that. But multiplication by 4 should be still cheaper or as
cheap as, because if we do * 3 by lea, we can do * 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83387
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-rtems5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
Bug ID: 83436
Summary: Internal file cannot be accessed by UNFORMATTED data
transfer when reading from /dev/urandom
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365
--- Comment #11 from Arnd Bergmann ---
More testing reveals that a handful of files in the kernel are affected by this
bug in the BUG() definition on architectures that do not use an inline assembly
statement to trap during an assertion, around
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
Bug ID: 83438
Summary: [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #40 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Sebastian Peryt from comment #39)
> I have tested it on SKX with SPEC2006INT and SPEC2017INT and don't see any
> regressions.
I should have written that the patch only affects znver1 tuning by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83437
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 14:36:26 2017
New Revision: 255696
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255696=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81281
* match.pd ((T)(P + A) - (T)P -> (T) A): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 13:43:30 2017
New Revision: 255694
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255694=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
PR lto/83388
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83437
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I think casting to/from void* (*)() should always be silently accepted.
Or perhaps the warning should not be enabled even for -Wextra like clang's
-Wbad-function-cast. (BTW why didn't you use that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 14:37:52 2017
New Revision: 255697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255697=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83269
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017, sergey.shalnov at intel dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
>
> --- Comment #16 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
> «it's one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80287
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83429
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Another test case, this time "note:" with argument range also points to
incorrect line:
[code]
#include
struct S
{
unsigned char n;
char out[2];
};
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #79 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #78)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #74)
> > (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #70)
> > > ktkatchov, I'll submit the patch as soon as it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83421
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
Fair enough. I'm sure Ubuntu wouldn't make this kind of patch unfortunately. It
is a shame their package diverges from the official package which sounds like
it includes more headers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017, sergey.shalnov at intel dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
>
> --- Comment #14 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
> " we have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77781
Robert Haberlach changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Yongwei Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wuyongwei at gmail dot com
--- Comment #30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 15 11:32:27 2017
New Revision: 255689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255689=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/66488
* ggc-page.c (HOST_BITS_PER_PTR): Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #16 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
«it's one vec_construct operation - it's the task of the target to turn this
into a cost comparable to vector_store»
I agree that vec_construct operation cost is based on the target cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #9)
> I don't understand how LIM may deduce that store sinking is safe without
> considering may-alias relations. If it is UB to write the same object from
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 15 11:31:42 2017
New Revision: 255688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255688=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/66488
* ggc-page.c (HOST_BITS_PER_PTR): Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #15 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
> Well, in theory multiplication by 3 isn't that expensive on i?86/x86_64,
> because lea can do that. But multiplication by 4 should be still cheaper or as
> cheap as, because if we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #78 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #74)
> (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #70)
> > ktkatchov, I'll submit the patch as soon as it completes testing, which
> > should be Real Soon Now (TM) :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #14 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
" we have a basic-block vectorizer. Do you propose to remove it? "
Definitely not! SLP vectorizer is very good to have!
“What's the rationale for not using vector registers”
I just tried
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 15 11:30:56 2017
New Revision: 255687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255687=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Eric Botcazou
PR target/66488
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> Created attachment 42894 [details]
> Tentative patch fixing backend call sites
I'll bootstrap and regtest this patch on x86_64 once IT brings my bootstrap
machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 42895
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42895=edit
A patch to add -mcheck-shstk-compat
-mcheck-shstk-compat is on by default. We can add
#if defined __SHSTK__ && defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83327
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82855
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82872
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82060
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 15 10:12:08 2017
New Revision: 255682
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255682=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-15 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83429
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Sometimes actual location is not reported at all:
[code]
#include
#include
struct S
{
char* str;
int n;
char out[10];
};
void test(S* s)
{
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #31 from Hans Ecke ---
I would like to point out that what everybody here proposes - make (void) work
properly with WUR - hurts no one. The other viewpoint has only given vague
theoretical reasons. Let me give you something concrete:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1)
> I can not check this right. Jerry, van you take a look?
Looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268
--- Comment #13 from Boris Kolpackov ---
No, I was not aware, thanks for the pointer. I skimmed through it and I agree,
the environment variable is a bad idea. In fact, if you look at the patch that
I've proposed, it has a unified option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83437
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59930
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Dec 15 15:04:59 2017
New Revision: 255698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255698=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR C++/59930] template friend classes & default args
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268
infinity0 at pwned dot gg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen ---
So I did a bisect of trunk during the GCC 7 development timeframe
(r235035-r247017) and it pointed to r236878 as the point where the failure
started.
+++ gcc/ChangeLog (revision 236878)
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81197
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:39:20 2017
New Revision: 255705
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255705=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/81197
* cp-tree.h (cp_maybe_mangle_decomp): Declare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83205
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:40:45 2017
New Revision: 255706
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255706=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/83205
* decl.c (cp_finish_decomp): Handle the case when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81197
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE with |[7 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83205
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83059
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:50:52 2017
New Revision: 255708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255708=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82781
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:50:00 2017
New Revision: 255707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255707=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82880
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:52:06 2017
New Revision: 255709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255709=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-21 James Cowgill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83084
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:53:29 2017
New Revision: 255710
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255710=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82253
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:54:15 2017
New Revision: 255711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255711=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-23 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:55:47 2017
New Revision: 255712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255712=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-23 Dirk Broemmel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83014
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 21:58:13 2017
New Revision: 255715
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255715=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-24 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81304
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 22:00:48 2017
New Revision: 255716
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255716=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-24 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81553
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 22:05:00 2017
New Revision: 255717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255717=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-25 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81675
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 22:06:16 2017
New Revision: 255718
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255718=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-27 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81888
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 15 22:07:23 2017
New Revision: 255719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255719=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-11-27 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Dec 15 16:19:22 2017
New Revision: 255700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255700=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83410
* tree-ssa-threadupdate.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #22 from Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268
--- Comment #14 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
> it has a unified option (-ffile-prefix-map) [..]
Oh, nice. That might save me some work, then.
Could you bounce me the thread? Or failing that, tell me the Message-ID of one
of the messages,
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo