https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65306
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Assembler support for interunit movq (e.g. "movq %rax, %xmm0") is detected with
configure, and HAVE_AS_IX86_INTERUNIT_MOVQ flag is set accordingly.
It looks that configure checks different assembler than the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62274
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to juchem from comment #3)
> Clang does accept this code: http://goo.gl/YKBt2l
Clang 3.3 and 3.4 do, yes. 3.5, 3.6 and their trunk don't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65318
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65292
John Marino changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnugcc at marino dot st
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62274
--- Comment #3 from juchem at gmail dot com ---
Clang does accept this code: http://goo.gl/YKBt2l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Tony Liu from comment #9)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 34955 [details]
> > Proposed Fix
> >
> > Well, I noticed that the first version of this patch ca
-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150304 (experimental) [trunk revision 221192] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.9.2 -O2 -g -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -g -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:27:1: internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #9 from Tony Liu ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8)
> Created attachment 34955 [details]
> Proposed Fix
>
> Well, I noticed that the first version of this patch caused
> a small but measurable decrease of code quality o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65306
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Niemerg ---
@Max. See the attached files.
@Howarth. I am compiling gcc-4.9.2 with gmp, mpfr, and mpc source directories
in the gcc-4.9.2 source tree. There is nothing disconcerting about not passing
--with-* to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65306
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Niemerg ---
Created attachment 34961
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34961&action=edit
extenddftf2.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65306
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Niemerg ---
Created attachment 34960
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34960&action=edit
extenddftf2.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
For the construction of the lambda in the simplified testcase I have just
uploaded:
MaybeInt().xmap([abc](int childId)
{
return ParsedSchema(bark, childId + 666);
});
We i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
--- Comment #12 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com ---
By the way, in g++ the bug can be triggered even with -O1 and without marking
any functions inline (implicitly or explicitly):
http://web.mit.edu/madars/Public/gcc-basic-arithmetic-bug-O1.cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65320
Bug ID: 65320
Summary: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/examples-4/e.51.2.f90 -O3 -g
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64850
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
--- Comment #11 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Confirmed that the libstdc++ test suite now shows no regressions on
x86_64-apple-darwin14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
I tried to construct a testcase for __restrict__ case:
int var;
const int *varptr=&var;
const int *__restrict__ varptr2=&var;
int *__restrict__ varptr3 = &var;
int *__restrict__ varptr4 = &var;
int *
retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65319
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
spawn /home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/home/dave/gnu/gc
c/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ot
her/dump-ada-spec-3.C -fno-diagnostics-sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65319
Bug ID: 65319
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/other/dump-ada-spec-3.C -std=gnu++98
(internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
Here is summary of my current understanding of remaining issues from my last
weekend's audit.
ICF specific:
- ipa-icf-gimple.c needs to match dependence analysis
Richard has propsed a patch for it, so I h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Mar 5 00:10:29 2015
New Revision: 221199
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65270
* ipa-icf.c (sem_item::compare_cgraph_references):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65316
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65302
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
BInutils, glibc and GCC patches are posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00257.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 34959
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34959&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 34958
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34958&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65313
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
I'll defer to Mike for deeper analysis, but changing ?m to !m seems very
reasonable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #17 from Michael Meissner ---
Just an additional comment. Jakub asked whether the PowerPC needed the
additional target attribute support that the x86 added as part of PR61925. I
looked at those patches, and at present those are not
: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150304 (experimental) [trunk revision 221192] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-4.9.2 -Os small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ ./a.out
0
$
-
int printf(const char *, ...);
static short a = 0;
short b = -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #16 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34957
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34957&action=edit
Backport of patches to gcc 4.8
Here is the backport of the patches to gcc 4.8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I think two things are coming into play with reproducing these issues.
First an inaccurate trunk version #. r221042 is not a trunk commit. I was
able to reproduce with r221041 which is a trunk commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34952|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65317
Bug ID: 65317
Summary: [SH] Shifts used instead of and with const_int
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65302
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Started with r218767:
commit 9e7bd3ae5774b5b9d383588f42d8edab0003a9bf
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Dec 15 22:35:20 2014 +
PR lto/64043
* gcc.dg/lto/20110201-1_0.c: New testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
--- Comment #9 from Zaak ---
I'm sorry for the duplicate commet and typo... it should be PR 65141 NOT 151
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
--- Comment #8 from Zaak ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> AFAICT the substring problem occurs for PARAMETER only:
>
> program test3
> INTEGER,PARAMETER :: ucs4 = selected_char_kind("ISO_10646")
> CHARACTER(3,UCS4),PAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65144
--- Comment #7 from Zaak ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> AFAICT the substring problem occurs for PARAMETER only:
>
> program test3
> INTEGER,PARAMETER :: ucs4 = selected_char_kind("ISO_10646")
> CHARACTER(3,UCS4),PAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 34955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34955&action=edit
Proposed Fix
Well, I noticed that the first version of this patch caused
a small but measurable decrease of co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65302
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
I submitted a proposed fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00244.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65316
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #8)
> Created attachment 34951 [details]
> Patch testing pass-through jump function indices
>
> Here is the same patch as an attachment.
Thanks. But I cannot re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
It might be easier to see this bug if you apply this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
index 7dfe1f6..7beb00e 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
@@ -973,6 +973,8 @@ expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65316
Bug ID: 65316
Summary: [5 Regression] LTO: Uninitialized memory / ICE with -g
-fno-lto-odr-type-merging: in types_same_for_odr, at
ipa-devirt.c:465
Product: gcc
V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
Bug ID: 65315
Summary: incorrect alignment of local variable with aligned
attribute
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Richard,
thanks, I also think alias trick makes gloal vars safe for merging across
RESTRICT flags.
One however needs to consider merging of items referring restricted vars.
const restrict int *a=&var;
const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
--- Comment #12 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34952&action=edit
Initial patch to paper over the problem
This patch papers over the problem. As I mentioned before this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65309
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 4 18:13:44 2015
New Revision: 221192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65209
PR c++/65309
* decl2.c (constrain_visibility_for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65209
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 4 18:13:44 2015
New Revision: 221192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65209
PR c++/65309
* decl2.c (constrain_visibility_for_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65309
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65309
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 34951
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34951&action=edit
Patch testing pass-through jump function indices
Here is the same patch as an attachment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64085
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65261
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 65261, which changed state.
Bug 65261 Summary: [5 Regression] bootstrap-ubsan ppc64le:
gcc/libcpp/lex.c:552:30: runtime error: load of misaligned address
0x01002172dfc6 for type 'const uchar', which requires 16 byte alig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65261
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Wed Mar 4 17:28:56 2015
New Revision: 221190
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221190&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR65261
Running bootstrap-ubsan on ppc64le shows many instan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Mar 4 17:19:55 2015
New Revision: 221189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64797
* include/bits/locale_conv.h (wstring_convert:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65314
Bug ID: 65314
Summary: invalid type for array subscript
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Could you attach the patch, please. It doesn't apply when I copy&paste.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65298
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
> ix=1 and m_vecpfx.m_num=1 in this case.
> Let me know what other debugging info may be useful to you.
Well, it might be difficult debugging this without re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65275
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The warning here appears to be bogus; the code looks well-defined to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65306
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-03 00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed 4.9 assert:
gcc_assert ((valv & ~val.mask
& ~nonzero_bits & mask).is_zero ());
fixed trunk assert:
@@ -1901,9 +1922,14 @@ evaluate_stmt (gimple stmt)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65302
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|5.0 |
Summary|[4.9 Regression] In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regression] Copy |Copy relocation in PIE
|relo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015, dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
>
> --- Comment #32 from David Edelsohn ---
> "So currently on a tie we don't vectorize ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #32 from David Edelsohn ---
"So currently on a tie we don't vectorize basic-blocks (same with GCC 4.8).
That's kind of arbitrary, but given instruction encoding size on x86 for
example
it makes sense."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65309
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65233
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34950&action=edit
CFG debugging
Just FYI - this is a local CFG debugging patch I use. Just do
(gdb) p debug_dot_cfg (cfun)
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65233
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
The error is to do anything that possibly relies on an up-to-date SSA web when
need_ssa_update () is true.
In fact the polymorphic call code walks to the PHI which is already dead
(it's block is gone). So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65313
Bug ID: 65313
Summary: Compilation error in lto profiledbootstrap on
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ---
Well, it looked like the same issue by inspection dumps, as folding issue
happens in reassoc-pass. Of course it might be that forward-prop patch is the
actual issue.
I noticed for -O3 on 4.9.x that valid comput
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The {} means value-initialization as opposed to default-initialization.
I think value-init requires the compiler to zero out all the members first,
even though they will be given another value anyway.
I h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Why do you think it is a duplicate? PR65216 was a 5 Regression, something that
worked in 4.9; this one is an issue with 4.9 and not 5. PR65216 was also about
-O3 only, this one fails even with -O2. PR65216
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65216
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||madars+gccbug at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #2 from radventure at yandex dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I believe this is a GCC extension, G++ implements the proposed resolution of
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#253 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65306
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
No need to rebuild the whole GCC with -save-temps. Just go to directory where
compilation of extenddftf2_s.o takes place and copy-paste the compilation
command for that one file with addition of -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65309
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I believe this is a GCC extension, G++ implements the proposed resolution of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#253 and since all
sub-objects of List are correctly initialized, no i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
Bug ID: 65312
Summary: Implicitly-declared default constructor must be
defined as deleted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, as variable merging always creates aliases accesses and their types remain
the same. So we don't need any extra checks for merging globals here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34949
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34949&action=edit
function parameter and variable part
I am testing that in addition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65311
Bug ID: 65311
Summary: Segmentation fault when doing unaligned assignment in
a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65309
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65120
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, just saw
> [ 2808s] ../drivers/xen/sfc_netfront/falcon_event.c:113:43: error: logical
> not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison
> [-Werror=logical-not-parentheses]
> [ 2808s] BUG_ON(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65308
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #2 from Jona
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
