http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 20968, which changed state.
Bug 20968 Summary: spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning (conditional
PHIs)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just adding a quick warning_at at the points where we optimize erroneous uses
of NULL I get:
j.c: In function 'test1':
j.c:10:9: warning: Erroneous NULL pointer use (explicit)
[enabled by default]
s->bar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, patch
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.c has the necessary logic to catch a lot of this kind
of stuff now. From what I can tell, it would catch everything properly in the
attached testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59186
--- Comment #1 from David Krauss ---
Just to clarify, in the last paragraph, decltype(this) has the same meaning in
both cases according to the standard but the bug causes it to refer to the
inner type instead of the outer type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30368
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59186
Bug ID: 59186
Summary: decltype(this) treated specially in
trailing-return-specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59185
Bug ID: 59185
Summary: compile error for va_list as a pointer parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59172
--- Comment #1 from Naohiko Shimizu ---
Created attachment 31244
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31244&action=edit
To make epilogue calculate sp apply this patch.
This patch works if the saved register is recovered with mov in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58961
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59184
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59184
Bug ID: 59184
Summary: Broken links
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
Assignee: unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59175
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Nov 19 01:30:51 2013
New Revision: 204996
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59175
* gcc.target/i386/memcpy-2.c: Fix template;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59175
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, we lose information here since we remove the range expression. I suppose
that problem should be handled independently. I will update the testcase to
new template and add +1 that will introduce new SSA nam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #12 from Andy Lutomirski ---
D'oh! I assumed that "it" was the resulting library (and thus that it would
require linking *against librt*), not that "it" was the configure test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #5)
> # For clock_gettime, nanosleep and sched_yield support.
> # NB: The default is [no], because otherwise it requires linking.
> GLIBCXX_ENABLE_LIBSTDCXX_TIME([n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59182
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59183
Bug ID: 59183
Summary: configure of pdsh successfuly checks for function
shl_load when lto is enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59182
Bug ID: 59182
Summary: can't convert from void (T::*)() to
std::function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59181
Bug ID: 59181
Summary: constraint "+xt" rejected: output constraint 0 must
specify a single register
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59180
Bug ID: 59180
Summary: x87 constraint "+tg" worse that "+tm" or "+t"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59175
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #9 from Andy Lutomirski ---
Given that this is C++11-only, it's already fixed on trunk, it's only a
performance issue (as opposed to correctness), and it's more complicated than
just changing the default, I won't argue for a backport.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For hosted linux --enable-libstdcxx-time can work just fine, just use it.
But, such a change isn't desirable for the branch, e.g. because the fancy
checks require link tests which aren't usable for some bare m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59179
Bug ID: 59179
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Wrong code generated with -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #7 from Andy Lutomirski ---
I guess what I'm saying is: what's wrong with "yes" in 4.8? From looking at
the code, it still seems like it does the right thing (i.e. not using
clock_gettime if it's not in [posix4]).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, for GCC 4.8.1 we've only changed minimum things that were required for
correct operation and ABI compatibility, it didn't receive the extra changes
for =auto.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.0 |4.8.3
--- Comment #5 from Andy Lutomirs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58410
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Slightly reduced test case:
module m
implicit none
type series
real,allocatable :: a(:)
end type
contains
function fun()
type(series),allocatable :: fun(:)
allocate(f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The default for --enable-libstdcxx-time is =auto, which should be the right
thing:
gnu* | linux* | kfreebsd*-gnu | knetbsd*-gnu)
AC_MSG_CHECKING([for at least GNU libc 2.17])
AC_TRY_COMPI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Nov 18 19:20:12 2013
New Revision: 204979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204979&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Andrew Pinski
Steve Ellcey
PR target/56552
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #3 from Andy Lutomirski ---
I can't get gcc trunk to build right now, but I just distcleaned and rebuilt
the 4.8 branch truck on Fedora 19, which has glibc-2.17-19.fc19.x86_64. It
defines _GLIBCXX_USE_CLOCK_GETTIME_SYSCALL. This happ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37132
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Updated patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-11/msg00060.html
DWARF question asked (accessrequires subscription)
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/private.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/2013-November/001289.ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Severity|blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59178
Bug ID: 59178
Summary: Stack corruption on register save/restore when using
frame pointer on pdp-11
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Patch installed.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just install glibc 2.17 or later if you care about the speed, otherwise it is
fixing much more important problem that the clocks had ABI incompatible
settings depending on common libstdc++ configure options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sarantis.pantazis at gmail dot
com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59168
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Domi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59043
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch submitted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02105.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch submitted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02098.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
Bug ID: 59177
Summary: steady_clock::now() and system_clock::now do not use
the vdso (and are therefore very slow)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59177
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> > I'll check it out on Linux.
>
> Thanks. BTW the test fails also on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (it was indeed
> expected).
no difference in results for "make ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
it
Test case: Run as "g++ -O3 -c test24.ii"
The attached file fails on x86-64-gnu-linux with GCC 4.9.0 20131118 (r204944).
$ g++ -O2 -c test24.ii
$ g++ -O3 -c test24.ii
...
test24.ii:19:27: error: edge points to wrong declaration:
...
test24.ii:19:27: internal compiler error: verify_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 31238
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31238&action=edit
Full output of "g++ -c -O3 test24.ii"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59175
Bug ID: 59175
Summary: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-2.c fails with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I'll check it out on Linux.
Thanks. BTW the test fails also on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (it was indeed
expected).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.sanchz at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|thomas.sanchz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58824, which changed state.
Bug 58824 Summary: Lambda trigger internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
What|Removed |Added
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 58824, which changed state.
Bug 58824 Summary: Lambda trigger internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
What|Removed |Added
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58701
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
Priority|P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> > If your change passes on, say...Linux, OK as obvious.
>
> That's the critical point: I cannot test the patch "on, say...Linux".
I'll check it out on Linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59080
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59096
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> If your change passes on, say...Linux, OK as obvious.
That's the critical point: I cannot test the patch "on, say...Linux".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56869
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 11/18/13 09:45, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
>
> --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> You need to post it on gcc-patches because I am not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> You need to post it on gcc-patches because I am not a maintainer for
> this piece of code.
Well, the test is yours. Who should I CC besides Iain Sandoe and Mike Stump?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59174
Bug ID: 59174
Summary: [avr] Suboptimal multiplication when indexing an array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 11/18/13 09:02, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> The FIXME is not relevant anymore. Can you post a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The FIXME is not relevant anymore. Can you post a patch to gcc-patches
> with your fix as well as removing the FIXME note?
Is the use of stdlib.h OK for other targets?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Is the line
>
> /* FIXME: This test has been xfailed until reductions are fixed. */
>
> still relevant? I don't see any xfail in the source.
>
The FIXME is not relevant anymore. Can you post a patch to g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.3 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59085
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 31236
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31236&action=edit
autoreduced testcase
autoreduced (may be now invalid)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54570
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:26:45 2013
New Revision: 204967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53473
* g++.dg/cpp0x/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54570
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:25:05 2013
New Revision: 204966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204966&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59125
PR tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59125
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:25:05 2013
New Revision: 204966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204966&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59125
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:13:14 2013
New Revision: 204965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-10-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59047
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:13:14 2013
New Revision: 204965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-10-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:13:14 2013
New Revision: 204965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-10-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:13:14 2013
New Revision: 204965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-10-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 18 15:13:14 2013
New Revision: 204965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-18 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-10-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59157
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> > long double f(long double x){
> > asm volatile("":"+mf"(x));
>
> "+t"(x) should be used here.
That's not really the same thing. The idea is that if I have:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57517
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53473
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.1, 4.9.0
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
It does, AFAICS.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks for the report, John. I'll fix the library parts (assuming the corrected
versions still compile with G++)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57517
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so we are having a combined chain where the combination is in a
conditional path.
Reduced testcase:
SUBROUTINE cal_helicity (uh, ph, phb, wavg, ims, ime, its, ite)
INTEGER, INTENT( IN ) :: ims, ime, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59157
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> long double f(long double x){
> asm volatile("":"+mf"(x));
"+t"(x) should be used here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59157
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
Bug ID: 59173
Summary: Alias template in partial specialization finds name
from primary template
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59159
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I wonder whether a very early pass splitting functions at FENV clobber
> points and preventing re-inlining would be a better solution
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
