https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65405
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64609
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64610
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43827
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #22 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 17 05:20:08 2015
New Revision: 221474
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221474&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/59198
* trans-types.c (gfc_ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #35 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:22:12 2015
New Revision: 221473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221473&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/64432
* gfortran.dg/sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #34 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:04:58 2015
New Revision: 221472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221472&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/64432
* intrinsics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:01:54 2015
New Revision: 221471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/64432
*trans-intrinis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Note that it compiles if I add "-fno-ipa-icf".
Yeah, but it is partitioning bug; it should be able to deal with whatever
aliases ICF creates.
I will take a look tonight or tomorrow.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64626
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Tue Mar 17 00:50:55 2015
New Revision: 221470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libcpp/
2015-03-16 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #13 from Honggyu Kim ---
Created attachment 35041
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35041&action=edit
backport patch from linaro
Jongsung Kim (neidhard@lge.com) found a patch that generates this error.
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #12 from Honggyu Kim ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #11)
> Thinking about it again, there's no reason not to do sibcalls, it's just the
> code gets confused on how to shuffle the arguments around. Will investigate
> deeper
Ye
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
--- Comment #12 from David Krauss ---
I did exactly the steps that I mentioned: cleanly build r220825, update to
r22, and build again without cleaning first. The object being to roughly
replicate the conditions when the bug was originally obs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58625
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
That C __builtin_signbit should be type-generic is bug 36757.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
Ok, I found the difference. The problem on the external gcc112 system (ie, the
big-endian system) is that the system binutils doesn't support POWER8, so
during gcc config/build, the power8 gcc support was d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Both patches look wrong to me.
> For the first change, it is wrong to add TSAN_FUNC_EXIT (), you should never
> add it out of nothing. First of all, you might c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65240
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34956|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 16 18:50:43 2015
New Revision: 221464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221464&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65427
* tree-vect-generic.c (do_cond, expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65431
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Mar 16 18:30:49 2015
New Revision: 221463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221463&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 1688
PR c++/65327
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Allow volat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65444
Bug ID: 65444
Summary: -z bndplt isn't passed to linker for -mmpx when
building dynamic objects
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #2)
> The problem with this transformation is that '_20 + 1' might overflow,
> that's what the comment 'This may need some additional preconditioning in
> case NIT =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
AFAIU, this is meant with the todo:
...
:
goto ;
:
i_17 = (int) ivtmp_6;
_7 = (long unsigned int) i_17;
_8 = _7 * 4;
_9 = pretmp_24 + _8;
_10 = *_9;
sum_11 = _10 + sum_y;
i_12 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Both patches look wrong to me.
For the first change, it is wrong to add TSAN_FUNC_EXIT (), you should never
add it out of nothing. First of all, you might consider allowing
TSAN_FUNC_EXIT () in find_return_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Consider test.c, compiled with -O2 -tree-parallelize-loops=2:
...
#include
extern unsigned int *a;
void
f (unsigned int n)
{
int i;
unsigned int sum = 1;
#pragma omp parallel
{
#pragma omp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59324
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65431
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 16 16:10:17 2015
New Revision: 221459
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221459&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65431
* omp-low.c (delete_omp_context): Only splay_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dmitry Shachnev from comment #2)
> Will anything bad happen if that memory is freed in the destructor?
Yes, because other destructors could run later, and could (potentially) need to
use the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65061
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17534
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
Bug ID: 65443
Summary: Don't peel last iteration from loop in
transform_to_exit_first_loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17534
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65423
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59491
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37303
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Shachnev ---
Will anything bad happen if that memory is freed in the destructor?
For me, the issue is mostly aesthetic — I got used to not seeing any Valgrind
warnings in my programs :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51562
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willus0 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59761
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Krauss from comment #10)
> I made a clean build of r220825, and it succeeded. Then I downgraded to
> r22, and it produced similar link errors, although not in type_info.
This is rat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59991
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65440
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65442
Bug ID: 65442
Summary: pass_lim misses support for exit-first loops
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65435
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
FYI, I've now opened an issue in the OpenSSL bug tracker:
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=3751
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65440
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Concrete example ( based on example at
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c;h=9aba79ba776944ec6fba8459354deabe8c126b75;hb=HEAD#l333)
test.c:
...
#include
const char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65071
--- Comment #3 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
For the record: a patch for this PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01067.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441
Bug ID: 65441
Summary: FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi (test
for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65440
Bug ID: 65440
Summary: pass_lim misses support for predicated code motion
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
Bug ID: 65439
Summary: [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-4.C
-std=gnu++98 scan-ipa-dump icf "Equal symbols: 6"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While I couldn't reproduce this on aarch64-linux, on arm-linux-gnueabihf
without the revert all my bootstraps since Friday ended up with ICEs, both
profiledbootstrap and normal bootstraps; for --with-default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
Bug ID: 65438
Summary: Unnecessary ptr check
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thinking about it again, there's no reason not to do sibcalls, it's just the
code gets confused on how to shuffle the arguments around. Will investigate
deeper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65437
Bug ID: 65437
Summary: acc_update_device and acc_update_self fail to
initialize runtime.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Further reduced so it doesn't rely on any C++11 or C++14 features:
template struct shared_ptr { };
template
shared_ptr make_shared(Arg) { return shared_ptr(); }
void f(int n){
make_shared(1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template struct shared_ptr { };
template
shared_ptr make_shared(Arg) { return {}; }
auto f(int n){
return make_shared(1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65159
--- Comment #10 from David Krauss ---
I made a clean build of r220825, and it succeeded. Then I downgraded to
r22, and it produced similar link errors, although not in type_info.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
Bug ID: 65436
Summary: Max number of extended asm +input operands currently
limited to 15
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64261
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64954
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #12)
> We won't want that mem_operand_gpr change for Linux or AIX as we do the
> alignment checking of more complex expressions in legitimate_address_p.
> Do take heed to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra ---
We won't want that mem_operand_gpr change for Linux or AIX as we do the
alignment checking of more complex expressions in legitimate_address_p.
Do take heed to the comment about accepting odd rtl generated by r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the bug is that tree-vect-generic.c doesn't lower COND_EXPRs, only
VEC_COND_EXPRs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65435
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
OpenSSL of course. 136 << 24 is not representable in int.
This is undefined behavior in C99/C11, and defined behavior in C++11.
Quoting C99 6.5.7/4:
"The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit position
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65435
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65435
Bug ID: 65435
Summary: UBsan runtime error reports in OpenSSL aes_core.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #20)
> Patch posted last night: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00069.html
>
> A somewhat better version might emerge tonight now that I understand better
> w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Mon Mar 16 11:17:32 2015
New Revision: 221457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-16 Max Ostapenko
PR sanitizer/64820
gcc/
* cf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65071
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
Bug ID: 65434
Summary: Memory leak in pool constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65414
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If somebody happens to have a commandline and .i file with which the problem
can be reproduced using a non-bootstrap compiler, please attach it here.
Thanks,
- Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65269
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65432
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65340
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 16 10:30:29 2015
New Revision: 221456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65409
* expr.c (store_field): Do not do a direc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Presumably started with r166013.
Note that in
constexpr volatile int a = 42;
constexpr int b = a;
the initialization of b should be rejected, but it is not. This is a related
problem though, my patch doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 16 10:28:39 2015
New Revision: 221454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65409
* expr.c (store_field): Do not do a direc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 16 10:26:28 2015
New Revision: 221453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221453&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65409
* expr.c (store_field): Do not do a direc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65327
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
