http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60350
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60351
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #15 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #20 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #18 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #40 from Roman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #36)
> (In reply to Roman from comment #35)
> > Tried to apply proposed patch for MinGW 4.8.1 and received no positive
> > effect. Compiler tells about error : 'stoi' was not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #39 from Roman ---
Created attachment 3
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3&action=edit
yeld with -std=c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #38 from Roman ---
Created attachment 32221
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32221&action=edit
yeld without -std=c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #37 from Roman ---
Created attachment 32220
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32220&action=edit
initilal file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60353
Bug ID: 60353
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Firefox build failure #3 caused by
r208157
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2013-05-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
> class A {
> public:
> virtual ~A();
> };
> class B : A {
> virtual int m_fn1();
> };
> void fn1() {
> delete reinterpret_cast(1);
> }
I don't underst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60352
Bug ID: 60352
Summary: [C++11] Bogus "error: conflicting declaration 'auto
i'"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53902
Rich Lowe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richlowe at richlowe dot net
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60247
bobf at mrp3 dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60351
Bug ID: 60351
Summary: Incorrect column number for warning on "right shift
count is negative"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
A testresult with the patch in #6 on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/msg01866.html
s.c:4:11: warning: ‘pf’ may be used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
(i ? pf : pv);
^
s.c:4:11: warning: ‘pv’ may be used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
$: gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 4.9.0 20140226 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2014
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60350
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:38:57PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Looks like an unguarded union access.
> This is a regression from the time there was now front-end optimization I
> guess?
Unfortun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57936
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57935
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:57:40 2014
New Revision: 208186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/57935
* reload1.c (emit_input_reload_insns): When reload_ove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59066
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58648
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30301
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:44:48 2014
New Revision: 208185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/30301
* g++.dg/parse/unnamed2.C: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30301
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30301
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:32:41 2014
New Revision: 208184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60347
PR lto/53808
* class.c (clone_function_decl): Don'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:32:41 2014
New Revision: 208184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60347
PR lto/53808
* class.c (clone_function_decl): Don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14710
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
PR c++/57132
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57132
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
PR c++/57132
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11586
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
PR c++/57132
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:28:08 2014
New Revision: 208183
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59231
PR c++/11586
PR c++/14710
PR c++/57132
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #16 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Feb 26 21:16:15 2014
New Revision: 208182
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-26 Fabien Chene
PR c++/37140
* parse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57636
--- Comment #5 from Jon Beniston ---
It's worth trying the fix posted for bug 57232.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55113
--- Comment #13 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> If double_type_node is FE dependent then it needs treatment in
> tree-streamer.c:preload_common_nodes:
>
> static void
> preload_common_nodes (struc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> Passing
>
> struct dummy { };
>
> is still odd for g++. It is supposed to have a single member of type char,
> which should be passed in register, not on stack.
This pas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Passing
struct dummy { };
is still odd for g++. It is supposed to have a single member of type char,
which should be passed in register, not on stack.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
It is a bit alarming that gcc, clang and clang++ use one ABI and g++ uses a
different (inferior) one (the incompatibility with clang++ should affect some
standard library functions, though they are often inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:15:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The workaround should be obvious, but just encase
> Reduced testcase
>
> subroutine modelg(ncm)
> implicit none
> i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] r208152|[4.9 Regression] r208153
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
This patch may be better:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 00773d8..426146a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -6842,7 +6842,7 @@ examine_argument
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to vagran from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > > Is this test valid? BTW, clang works fine on x86.
> >
> > No this testcase i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60349
Bug ID: 60349
Summary: Any call to expq (or libquadmath function that might
possibly call expq) segfaults in mingw-gcc.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
Bug ID: 60348
Summary: -static-libstdc++ broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #9 from vagran ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > Is this test valid? BTW, clang works fine on x86.
>
> No this testcase is not valid at all. See
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedoc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 32219
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32219&action=edit
Unreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
Bug ID: 60347
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208152 breaks Firefox build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
This works:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 00773d8..16669b9 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -7193,6 +7193,7 @@ function_arg_advance_64 (CUMULA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59570
Eugene Zelenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Eugene Ze
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Is this test valid? BTW, clang works fine on x86.
No this testcase is not valid at all. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Empty-Structures.html#Empty-Str
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Can someone try this on non-x86 targets?
I get abort on alpha:
$ gcc -c fun.i
$ gcc -c x.ii
$ g++ fun.o x.o
$ ./a.out
Aborted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> It is a target bug if it is passing on the stack. Note in C++, the size of
> the struct is 1 while in C, the size is 0.
Changing the testcase a bit:
fun(d, 2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59223
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60294
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59223
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56427
Bug 56427 depends on bug 54440, which changed state.
Bug 54440 Summary: [c++11] g++ prematurely applying rule that a template
parameter pack cannot be followed by a template parameter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54440
W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54440
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Known to fail|4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54440
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 17:08:20 2014
New Revision: 208178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/54440
* pt.c (get_template_parm_index): New.
(fixed_param
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|va_start corrupts 6-th |empty struct value is
|argume
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 17:01:12 2014
New Revision: 208177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60182
* pt.c (unify): Ignore alias templates when deducing a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 16:51:14 2014
New Revision: 208176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60345
* g++.dg/conversion/ref1.C: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 26 16:48:22 2014
New Revision: 208175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60345
Revert:
DR 1571
* call.c (reference_binding): R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #18 from Jon Beniston ---
Thanks, this seems to fix the LM32 port.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
struct C {};
struct J : C {};
struct A {
operator J* ();
};
A p;
C* const& q = p;
(I'll stop there ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
template struct A {
operator T &();
};
struct C {};
struct J : C {};
void f(C* const&);
void g(A p2) {
f(p2);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> I have another test case, available on request.
Still going wrong.
>From the gcc test suite, g++.old-deja/g++.jason/thunk1.C
is fine with -O2 and then goes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 src % cat test.ii
template struct A {
operator T &();
};
class C {};
class J : public C {};
template struct F {
void m_fn1(const K &);
};
template struct D : AtomThingMapPtrT {};
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 src % cat test.ii
class A {};
template class Handle : A {
public:
operator T &();
};
class JSAtom {};
class PropertyName : public JSAtom {};
template class InlineMap {
public:
void remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 32218
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32218&action=edit
unreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60345
Bug ID: 60345
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208159 cause Firefox build error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60317
Bug 60317 depends on bug 60343, which changed state.
Bug 60343 Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208155 breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 26 10:29:04 2014
New Revision: 208170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-26 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/60343
* lra-assigns.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60344
Bug ID: 60344
Summary: [C++1y] 7.1.6.4/13 not enforced
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60340
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not sure that -fcheck-data-deps has been kept up-to-date enough to be
useful ... (and the omega result looks bogus)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Following patch works for me:
--cut here--
Index: lra-assigns.c
===
--- lra-assigns.c (revision 208168)
+++ lra-assigns.c (working cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #36 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Roman from comment #35)
> Tried to apply proposed patch for MinGW 4.8.1 and received no positive
> effect. Compiler tells about error : 'stoi' was not declared in this scope.
> Have any Idea ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60327
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #8)
> FWIW, I think the error is in the caller of move_block_to_reg.
> move_block_to_reg can make use of a load_multiple instruction, which really
> loads full regs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60343
Bug ID: 60343
Summary: r208155 breaks bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assig
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
