https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60899
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 21 06:16:03 2014
New Revision: 210676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60899
* gimple-fold.c (can_refer_decl_in_cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 21 05:52:07 2014
New Revision: 210675
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58094
* g++.dg/ipa/devirt-11.C: Be lax about number
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61232
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #29 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 21 05:41:46 2014
New Revision: 210674
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/60984
* ipa-inline-transform.c (inline_call): Use ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 21 05:40:09 2014
New Revision: 210673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/60984
* ipa-inline-transform.c (inline_call): Use ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61243
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #3)
> Obviously, this only works as long as the code is still compilable by g95 ...
which in our project started to require so many workarounds that :
http://so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #14 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Dan Gohman from comment #13)
> *p can't alias a or b without violating the weaker assumption.
Sorry, you've lost me there. Pointers in realloc'ed storage can alias
already-existing pointers, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61262
--- Comment #1 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com ---
A bug that causes GCC to segfault AND is a regression is only normal in
severity? I thought a crash is one of those things that should never, EVER
happen?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60820
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 21 02:32:00 2014
New Revision: 210671
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/60820
* varpool.c (varpool_remove_node): Do not alter decls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61262
Bug ID: 61262
Summary: GCC segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60166
--- Comment #9 from macro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: macro
Date: Wed May 21 02:15:50 2014
New Revision: 210670
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210670&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-21 Maciej W. Rozycki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60166
--- Comment #8 from macro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: macro
Date: Wed May 21 01:54:45 2014
New Revision: 210669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210669&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-21 Maciej W. Rozycki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61261
--- Comment #3 from Jacob Abel ---
Created attachment 32838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32838&action=edit
gfortran -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61261
--- Comment #2 from Jacob Abel ---
Created attachment 32837
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32837&action=edit
valgrind output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61261
--- Comment #1 from Jacob Abel ---
Created attachment 32836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32836&action=edit
gdb output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61261
Bug ID: 61261
Summary: [OOP] Segfault on source-allocating polymorphic
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #27 from David Edelsohn ---
The GCC 4.9 branch bootstraps with the patch for me. I'm running the testsuite
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #7 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Yes. gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c is still FAIL.
I have not found an easy way to fix it. The root cause for the FAIL is that:
A register copy is forwarded by copyprop_hardreg_forward called i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #13 from Dan Gohman ---
(In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #12)
> (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #10)
> > This assumption only aids
> > optimization in the case where a pointer residing in the obtained memory is
> > used (e.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60166
--- Comment #7 from macro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: macro
Date: Wed May 21 01:24:05 2014
New Revision: 210668
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210668&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/60166
* config/arm/sfp-machine.h (_FP_NANFRAC_H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #11 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Wed May 21 00:35:29 2014
New Revision: 210666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210666&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
2014-05-20 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #12 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #10)
> This assumption only aids
> optimization in the case where a pointer residing in the obtained memory is
> used (e.g. dereferenced or compared with another pointer)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #11 from Paul Eggert ---
Created attachment 32834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32834&action=edit
Sample illustrating GCC's optimization with __attribute__ ((malloc))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61260
--- Comment #1 from Jordan DeLong ---
The original error.cc compiles on clang and icc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61260
Bug ID: 61260
Summary: Issue with instantiates of variadic templates inside
other templates (possibly name lookup problem)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Thanks for tracking this down. I will test it as well. AIX is a very good
> canary for these types of bugs.
Yeah, the difference here is that we produce a lot more local aliases on AIX
than elsewhere. We d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #25 from David Edelsohn ---
Thanks for tracking this down. I will test it as well. AIX is a very good
canary for these types of bugs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
the problem turns out to be quite ugly issue where inline_call removes dead
alias, but the alias is being walked by cgraph_for_node_and_aliases used
by ipa-inline to inline function into all callees.
The a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53984
--- Comment #4 from Igor ---
This is a really evil bug. I wonder why the Importance is not higher.
This may crash programs that try to read many /proc files on Linux.
~$ g++ -x c++ -o test - <
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60063
Petr Machata changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmachata at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61243
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61243
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue May 20 21:24:37 2014
New Revision: 210658
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210658&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/61243
* emit-rtl.c (emit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #10 from Rich Felker ---
I don't see how it's at all helpful for GCC to assume that memory obtained by
__attribute__((__malloc__)) functions does not contain pointers to anything
that existed before the call. This assumption only aids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32831|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #8 from Paul Eggert ---
Comment on attachment 32831
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32831
Clarify documentation for __attribute__ ((malloc)).
>Index: gcc/ChangeLog
>===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #21 from Rich Felker ---
Created attachment 32830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32830&action=edit
proposed patch
patch is generated against the revision that introduced this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60463
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58930, which changed state.
Bug 58930 Summary: [C++11] Bogus error: converting to ... from initializer list
would use explicit constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58753, which changed state.
Bug 58753 Summary: Brace-initializing a vector with a direct-initialization
NSDMI doesn't work in a template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 19:20:59 2014
New Revision: 210653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58753
PR c++/589
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 19:20:59 2014
New Revision: 210653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58753
PR c++/589
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
--- Comment #14 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 19:20:59 2014
New Revision: 210653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58753
PR c++/58
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61208
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Patch pending review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01638.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61259
Bug ID: 61259
Summary: Spurious "ISO C++ forbids zero-size array" warning
with -pedantic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61258
Bug ID: 61258
Summary: gccgo: assertion failure go-map-delete.c:37
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61187
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Even with the patch, I still get (using -m32 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
Confirmed, I have overlooked this failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61201
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Ah, now that's a good answer. Thanks, Eric.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60758
--- Comment #10 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Tue May 20 17:25:26 2014
New Revision: 210650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-20 Alexey Merzlyakov
PR libstdc++/61223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61223
--- Comment #2 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Tue May 20 17:25:26 2014
New Revision: 210650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-20 Alexey Merzlyakov
PR libstdc++/61223
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Even with the patch, I still get (using -m32 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61201
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61243
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Klose ---
on powerpc64le, the test passes with both the stage2 and stage3 compilers of
the problematic build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43113
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
I meant to add that the issue I'm seeing on BE is due to the same patch that
Matthias is having a problem with, namely 210520 (trunk) 210519 (4.9).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 32828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32828&action=edit
Test case that errors out with invalid assembly on big-endian
[bergner@makalu-lp1 BUGS]$
/home/bergner/gcc/bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60373
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60969
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60373
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 15:16:48 2014
New Revision: 210646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60373
* decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61257
Bug ID: 61257
Summary: configure should check if sys/sdt.h is usable, not
just checking the existance of the header
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44557
--- Comment #10 from Chung-Lin Tang ---
The ICE still happens under -mno-lra (and using reload).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61256
Bug ID: 61256
Summary: [4.10 regression] Building spec2000/252.eon with LTO
got a compfail after r210522
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61210
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue May 20 14:18:44 2014
New Revision: 210645
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210645&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/
PR bootstrap/61210
* pt.c (tsubst_copy, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61241
--- Comment #4 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Can you please send the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org including a
> ChangeLog
Done! Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61251
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30617
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter.machon at arcor dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61255
Bug ID: 61255
Summary: gccgo: spurious "error: argument 2 has incompatible
type" [GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61254
Bug ID: 61254
Summary: gccgo: spurious "error: slice end must be integer"
[GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 13:30:40 2014
New Revision: 210642
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58664
* typeck2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
--- Comment #3 from hazeman11 at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32827&action=edit
corrected minimal example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61223
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61253
Bug ID: 61253
Summary: gccgo: spurious "error: expected '<-' or '='"
[GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
--- Comment #2 from hazeman11 at gmail dot com ---
Yep sorry for so "stupid" example. I've reduced it to bare minimum without
looking whether it does make sense. Ofcourse something like
maxstep = std::min(std::min(a0[i],a1[i]),maxstep);
would ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Bug ID: 61252
Summary: Invalid code produced for omp simd reduction(min:var)
where var is reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61251
Bug ID: 61251
Summary: Hang in write from inside a function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #4 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
> is test/compile sufficient, or do you have to run it?
Just compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
is test/compile sufficient, or do you have to run it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61195
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
