https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64171
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65125
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65306
Bug ID: 65306
Summary: make error with clang on OSX 10.9.5 -- movq
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 05:56:54 2015
New Revision: 221173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 05:51:08 2015
New Revision: 221172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221172&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65233
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I was a bit concerned that something here might be more deeply amiss, so I took
a little time to walk through things under the debugger.
If I put a breakpoint in cleanup_tree_cfg and ignore it until the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #7 from Tony Liu ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #6)
> Ok, I think I understand now, what is wrong.
>
> r216989 did just cause the strict-alignment code path to be executed,
> which was not the case before.
>
> Actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64453
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 02:06:07 2015
New Revision: 221170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #30 from Martin Sebor ---
In light of this discussion it seems as though it might be best to keep the
changes to the tests for this functionality to a minimum for now. Unless
someone has a different suggestion I'll post an updated pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65286
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2015-3-3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #9 from Peter Wu ---
Tested with
clang version 3.7.0 (http://llvm.org/git/clang.git
6b7e300a9c14a2ff364d8ef8a0f7510378f38dbc) (http://llvm.org/git/llvm
258b7710d59c086656f7b26f02326d7ca69d71fd)
(http://llvm.org/git/compiler-rt.git 70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #15 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Mar 3 23:55:24 2015
New Revision: 221166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65249
* config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Use R0 reg for opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Peter Wu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #6)
> > > How does your GCC behave with the test case? The sanitizer code in GCC is
> > > imported from Clang, I believ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Mar 3 23:51:55 2015
New Revision: 221165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65249
* config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Use R0 reg for opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #7 from Peter Wu ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #6)
> > How does your GCC behave with the test case? The sanitizer code in GCC is
> > imported from Clang, I believe, so it probably does not crash either?
>
> I get th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Martin,
A lot of folks use "delta" to do testcase reduction. Delta is pretty dumb in
that it removes code, runs a test (defined by the developer) and if the failure
is still there, removes more code, else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Making reload_cse_regs less pessimistic at CODE_LABELs really isn't feasible.
cselib isn't easily turned into a scoped hash table and the multiple assignment
nature of RTL means that a simple scoped hash t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #8)
The ICE is triggered by -mcpu=power8 and disappears with -mcpu=power7 and
prior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
It is likely due to a combination of -ffast-math and -mupper-regs on
power7/power8. This is a problem I've seen before, but I thought I had
squashed it.
Basically, the code I've seen before, you have cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65305
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
Comment #7 means that it fails with -mcpu=power8.
What feature really exposes the problem? -mcpu=power7? -mcpu=power6?
-mcpu=power5?
Thanks, David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65125
Zaak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #55 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
compiler-rt-r230324 is the patch I would like to cherry-pick.
Jakub, is this OK?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #54 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34944
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34944&action=edit
compiler-rt-r230324
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
--- Comment #16 from Zaak ---
*** Bug 49150 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49150
Zaak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #15 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34943&action=edit
Backport of patches to gcc 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(gdb) p *jfunc
$10 = {
agg = {
items = 0x0,
by_ref = false
},
alignment = {
known = false,
align = 0,
misa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49149
Zaak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
--- Comment #5 from Zaak ---
Alright, I agree with Dominique, this bug report was erroneous on my part. In
the two follow up programs I posted, (modifing Dominique's) I accidentally used
`unip` substrings instead of `uni` substrings.
In my origi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
Zaak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I also cannot reproduce the ICE with the original test case but I can confirm
it with the test case from comment #6. The test case isn't strictly conforming
(as pointed out by a number warnings when -Wall is u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
while looking for a testcase that would trigger with tree-tail-merge (because
gimple-fold seems to also miss MEM_REF merging) I noticed following oddity:
struct a
{
int a[10];
};
typedef struct a b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> ix=1 and m_vecpfx.m_num=1 in this case.
> Let me know what other debugging info may be useful to you.
This is primarily Martin Jambor's area, so he may beat me. I will try to take
a look tonight and see if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
--- Comment #4 from Zaak ---
My apologies, I responded too quickly to Dominique... I thought we were talking
about: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65125 and failed to realize
that this was something (related?) different that that bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #44 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 34942
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34942&action=edit
Better patch
I'm not working on this, so I'm attaching the current patch in my work tree,
before it's lost.
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48188
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regression] testsuite|testsuite ICEs on
|IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, I'm switching the test to use either char16_t or char32_t instead of
wchar_t, because that definitely causes a conversion error (instead of
depending on the native character set used by wchar_t). Doing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65233
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.guenther at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
--- Comment #35 from Jan Hubicka ---
Zack,
happy to hear from you again! Indeed the problem back was quite sloppy and we
kind of mixed up symbols, assembler names and declarations in not well defined
way.
I think the safest way to go is to build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sigh...
reload_cse_regs doesn't help us because of the CODE_LABEL at the start of block
C in the mini-cfg referenced in c#17. In essence it's using the same extended
block definition as LRA.
postreload-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
--- Comment #7 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> I think this is probably a bug in the test. I was expecting "Stop\\xff\\xff"
> to cause a conversion error, but it is successfully converted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
I'm preparing the patches for the back ports to GCC 4.8/4.9. Once those are
committed, I will close the PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
ix=1 and m_vecpfx.m_num=1 in this case.
Let me know what other debugging info may be useful to you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65305
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65295
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Václav Zeman from comment #13)
> This bug appears to be affecting 4.7.x series as well. Is there a chance to
> get this fixed for 4.7 as well?
No, the 4.7 branch is closed and there will be n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 3 18:14:20 2015
New Revision: 221160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-03 Iain Sandoe
PR libstdc++/64883
* testsuite/17_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65295
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Mar 3 18:14:24 2015
New Revision: 221161
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221161&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65295
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression): Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Václav Zeman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vhaisman at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
amdfam10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65300
--- Comment #4 from webmatematika at hotmail dot com ---
Thanks for time and explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65295
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
lto1: internal compiler error: in operator[], at vec.h:736
0xffc277 vec::operator[](unsigned int)
../../gcc/gcc/vec.h:736
0xffd678 vec::operator[](unsigned int)
../../gcc/gcc/vec.h:1184
0xffd678
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65301
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65303
Bug 65303 depends on bug 65256, which changed state.
Bug 65256 Summary: [5 regression] Undefined symbols linking f951
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65287
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Mar 3 17:33:22 2015
New Revision: 221157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221157&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65287
* gcc.dg/ipa/pr65287.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65303
Bug 65303 depends on bug 65287, which changed state.
Bug 65287 Summary: [5 Regression] Current trunk ICE in address_matters_p, at
symtab.c:1908
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65287
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65287
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65287
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Mar 3 17:32:21 2015
New Revision: 221156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65287
* ipa-icf.c (sem_variable::parse): Skip all alias var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65305
Bug ID: 65305
Summary: [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-strchr.c and
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr63995-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 3, 2015 4:08:17 PM CET, "howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
>
>howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
>
> What|Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65304
--- Comment #1 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34941&action=edit
automatically reduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65304
Bug ID: 65304
Summary: [4.9] [ARM] incorrect "asm operand has impossible
constraints" error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #11 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Mar 3 17:04:01 2015
New Revision: 221155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-03 Michael Meissner
PR 65138/target
* config/rs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
--- Comment #3 from Zaak ---
Similarly if I try to use a substring in an if statement:
program test3
INTEGER,PARAMETER :: ucs4 = selected_char_kind("ISO_10646")
CHARACTER(3,UCS4),PARAMETER ::
unip=CHAR(INT(Z'5e74'),UCS4)//CHAR(INT(Z'6708'),u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65300
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65291
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We could potentially add a note saying that the default constructor is
suppressed by the presence of another user-declared constructor, but that's
unrelated to inheriting constructors, and should be a separ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65300
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
[class.inhctor]/3:
For each non-template constructor in the candidate set of inherited
constructors other than a constructor having no parameters or a copy/move
constructor having a single parameter, a con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65303
Bug ID: 65303
Summary: Tracking bug for ICF issues
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65291
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65300
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Sigh, I still got it wrong, sorry!
The default ctor is suppressed, because you declared:
C(int c1, int c2, int c3) : A(c1, c2) {}
The solution is still to declare it explicitly:
C() = default;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
--- Comment #2 from Zaak ---
Try this:
program test3
INTEGER,PARAMETER :: ucs4 = selected_char_kind("ISO_10646")
CHARACTER(3,UCS4),PARAMETER ::
unip=CHAR(INT(Z'5e74'),UCS4)//CHAR(INT(Z'6708'),ucs4)//CHAR(INT(Z'65e5'),ucs4)
character(3,UCS4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65301
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I pointed out other similar cases in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18016#c9 when fixing the simple
case of args(args)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65301
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, this is well known and a dup of another bug, maybe several.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65299
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
[over.match.oper] says "c++" does name lookup for operator++ using qualified
lookup for C::operator++ and unqualified lookup for "operator++" (and the
built-in candidates, which aren't valid here). If name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #29 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> it makes sense. Note that we seem to prefer optimized re-alignment loads
> over misaligned loads (even if double-word aligned) - the vectorizer is not
> set
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Bug 56183 depends on bug 49491, which changed state.
Bug 49491 Summary: Superfluous move because of unnecessary spill for 2-operand
insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49491
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #28 from Bill Schmidt ---
I agree with Richi's assessment that this isn't a regression because of the
change in default for cost modeling.
Once my patch lands after GCC 5 releases, and gets backported various places,
we will see much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49491
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65295
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63572
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65263
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
*** Bug 65278 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65302
Bug ID: 65302
Summary: [5 Regression] LTO: ICE internal compiler error:
verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65302
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 34939
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34939&action=edit
two.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
