https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
--- Comment #8 from Carrot ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #7)
> (In reply to Carrot from comment #6)
> > Since it is intentionally to remove flag DF_REF_READ_WRITE on use,
>
> Ah, but I don't think that was the correct fix. The DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56194
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56194
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Sep 6 21:53:14 2014
New Revision: 214998
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214998&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/56194
* g++.dg/init/const9.C: Skip scan-assembl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56194
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Sep 6 21:50:40 2014
New Revision: 214997
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214997&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/56194
* g++.dg/init/const9.C: Skip scan-assembl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56194
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Sep 6 21:45:53 2014
New Revision: 214996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/56194
* g++.dg/init/const9.C: Skip scan-assembl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63195
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
Bug ID: 63197
Summary: tc-m68k.c: Wrong warning "array subscript is below
array bounds"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63196
Bug ID: 63196
Summary: [5.0 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr57140.C -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer (internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57821
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
Backtrace at ICE:
Breakpoint 1, _Z12tree_to_uhwiPK9tree_node (t=0x7ae68b58)
at ../../gcc/gcc/tree.c:7024
7024 gcc_assert (tree_fits_uhwi_p (t));
(gdb) p debug_tree (t)
constant
0x8000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61158
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
It looks like the test fails because HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT is
32 on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. As a result, the fold optimization
doesn't occur.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61158
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63195
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
$ ../gcc/configure --prefix=/usr --build=powerpc64-linux
--enable-checking=release --enable-shared --with-system-zlib 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g'
'CXXFLAGS=-O2 -g' --with-cpu-64=power4 --enable-secureplt
--with-long-dou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63195
Bug ID: 63195
Summary: [5.0 regression] stage3 build/gengtype miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62255
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63194
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3, 4.9.0
Summary|[4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63194
Bug ID: 63194
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] ICE in
maybe_explain_implicit_delete, at cp/method.c:1552
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to GGanesh from comment #9)
> Patch that fixes this issue has been submitted
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg02179.html
>
> The idea is to prohibit changes to the "enabled"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63189
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57530
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48947
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gmarkhor at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60690
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63171
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63171
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Sep 6 10:04:44 2014
New Revision: 214989
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214989&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/63171
* rtlanal.c (tls_refere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63193
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63193
Bug ID: 63193
Summary: omp_set_dynamic memory leak
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61942
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I tried trunk again and still nothing, so maybe only 4.9 is affected.
But both 4.9/trunk contain the "nmax = INTVAL (mmax) - INTVAL (mmin);" line...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62270
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> Is a brand new warning ready for the prime time of -Wall ?
The warning existed for some time already before it's been added to -Wall.
> It might be a tad mor
29 matches
Mail list logo
