https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65536
Bug ID: 65536
Summary: [5 regression] LTO line number information garbled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
Bug ID: 65535
Summary: powerpc64-freebsd build failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65534
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65534
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
> #ifndef OPTIMIZE_MANUALLY
> void setutent(void) {
> ((void)0);
> __setutent_unlocked();
> ((void)0);
> }
> #else
> extern __typeof (__setutent_unlocked) setutent
> __attribute__ ((alias ("__se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65533
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35341
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65502
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I think we can safely ignore clobbers when scanning functions for
> pure/constness.
Yes (it is what the patch does), but doing so may cause worse code in the
function calling these destructors. DCE will rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65534
Bug ID: 65534
Summary: tailcall not optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65533
Bug ID: 65533
Summary: [5 Regression] 252.eon in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65532
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65532
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65532
Bug ID: 65532
Summary: [5 Regression] Unexpected error with legacy code
(D1MACH)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65529
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Yes, though I think for such a class we probably want to consider all virtual
> methods unreachable unless they have explicit default visibility; in the
> testcase the main program isn't being compiled wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65531
Bug ID: 65531
Summary: ICE: symtab_node::verify failed: Two symbols with same
comdat_group are not linked by the same_comdat_group
list. with -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 20:04:43 2015
New Revision: 221607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Jakub Jelinek
PR testsuite/65506
* gcc.dg/pr29215.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 20:03:50 2015
New Revision: 221606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65523
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_build_returned_bound): Ignore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65475
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 19:51:51 2015
New Revision: 221605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65475
* g++.dg/lto/pr65475_0.C: Use dg-lto-options instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug ID: 65530
Summary: [meta-bug] -mmpx -fcheck-pointer-bounds failures
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65529
Bug ID: 65529
Summary: [5 Regression][SH] gcc.dg/pr29215.c failing
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65528
Bug ID: 65528
Summary: [mpx] internal compiler error: in
expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7761
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65505
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65527
Bug ID: 65527
Summary: ICE: in expand_builtin_with_bounds, at builtins.c:7120
with -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65505
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Mar 23 18:57:58 2015
New Revision: 221604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65505
* config/sh/predicates.md (simple_mem_operand,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65519
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 23 18:19:01 2015
New Revision: 221602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221602&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65296
* config/avr/driver-avr.c (avr_devicespecs_file):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> I suppose we could make C++ FE to track if a type has methods with
> visibility default declared (I can't track that from symbol table as they
> may be unreachable)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65516
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
this was also my bug. Sorry for that. It is fixed on current mainlie.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #38 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Mar 23 17:37:25 2015
New Revision: 221601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Martin Sebor
PR testsuite/63175
* gcc.dg/vect/cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think std::atomic should increase the alignment of its T member. That will
have the advantage of being layout-compatible with _Atomic T.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65526
Bug ID: 65526
Summary: testsuite checks for arm vectorization support on
non-arm targets
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65515
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-23 12:39 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Doesn't seem to be specific to hppa, on x86_64-linux I can reproduce it as
> well, and need ulimit -s 46000 to pass.
> The Fedora default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Lapshin ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> This does seem like a bug.
What is a proper behavior for G++ in this case ?
should it always align std::atomic object of size 8 at 8 bytes ?
Or should G++ jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65524
--- Comment #2 from yuta tomino ---
Created attachment 35115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35115&action=edit
example
I found the way of reproducing.
A tiny change of a-tags.ads is necessary.
Insert "is null" into Ada.Tags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65515
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is from:
644 else if (TREE_CODE (expr) == FUNCTION_TYPE
645 || TREE_CODE (expr) == METHOD_TYPE)
646DFS_follow_tree_edge (TYPE_ARG_TYPES (expr));
where TYPE_ARG_TYPES contai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 23 16:47:18 2015
New Revision: 221600
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221600&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64967
* acinclude.m4: Disable dual ABI when gnu-vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65515
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Joel Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.matz at horizonbtc dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60408
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson ---
Even if we could fix the vec_extract constraints, we still end up with 3
instructions, as the optimizer can't do anything interesting with the
vec_extract RTL.
For a 32-bit SFmode value though, we can just use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60408
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at tuliptree dot org
--- Comment #2
d ICE" when compiled with
"-std=c++14";
// "-std=c++11" compiles fine.
// g++ -std=c++14 test.cpp
// Tested with:
// g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150308 (experimental)
// g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150323 (experimental)
struct A
{
int x;
char y; // Actually, short and bool (types s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65519
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
The problematic statement is created by the gimple-match stuff:
Applying pattern match.pd:761, gimple-match.c:1727
Applying pattern match.pd:625, gimple-match.c:1525
gimple_simplified to _71 = I.3_30(ab) & 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looks reasonable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 15:49:02 2015
New Revision: 221599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/65522
* ipa-devirt.c: Remove duplicate demangle.h inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64967
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Or drop the gnu-versioned-namespace support altogether.
I'd like to do that ... maybe for GCC 6 though. It seems a bit late now to
remove it without deprecatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> In 4.9 branch, the check is located in three different places throughout
> constrain_operands. There was a big cleanup by Richard Sandiford in this
> area [1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65496
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Richard, any thoughts what to do about this? Avoid scheduling frame related
> instructions across conditional jumps? Something else?
Yes, for the short ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] select |[4.9 Regression] select
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 15:31:59 2015
New Revision: 221597
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65504
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_copy_addr_to_reg): Set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65521
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65521
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 23 15:17:20 2015
New Revision: 221596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65521
* ipa-icf.c (sem_item::update_hash_by_addr_refs): Ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 23 14:59:57 2015
New Revision: 221595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65518
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Known to fail|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-23 10:05 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Indeed, have verified this with the cross-compiler and the attached patch
> should cure this.
I have applied the patch for testing but hi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|rguenth at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-23 10:02 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 3) Use fixincludes to change either the definition of __LWP_RWLOCK_VALID to
> (short)0x8c91 or change the definition of PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59254
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35109|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65524
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #3 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65524
Bug ID: 65524
Summary: gnatbind generates decrementing the unexisting
elab-counter into finalize_library
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21494
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65519
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's forwprop4 propagating an abnormal SSA name:
:
[...]
I.3_30(ab) = I.3_1 + 1;
_31 = (interfaces__unsigned_32) I.3_30(ab);
[...]
:
_43 = v.P_ARRAY;
_45 = (sizetype) _31;
is changed into:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65506
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35111
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35111&action=edit
gcc5-pr65506.patch
Indeed, have verified this with the cross-compiler and the attached patch
should cure this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #1)
> At one time, GCC was permissive about system header issues, particularly
> when they aren't
> really a problem. Is this still the case?
It is, yes, but this spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #57 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Cherry-picked r230324 and committed in GCC as r221593, to fix aarch64 problems.
I'm not sure whether the "old arm" and hppa problems have been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
--- Comment #56 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clyon
Date: Mon Mar 23 13:43:22 2015
New Revision: 221593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Christophe Lyon
PR sanitizer/59009
* san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64931
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Ah, except ada_demangle is also exported from libgnat*.so - wonder why the
> RTS is built with IN_GCC.
This is explained in gcc-interface/Makefile.in.
> In that case, guess the Ada folks need to decide wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #10)
> I believe that the choice to scalarize is based on the vector cost model.
Hm, that would be interesting. The applied patch changes the cost model to
favor the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57221
--- Comment #9 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Hi Bero,
I'm working on reproducing this. How do you build the android toolchain? Is
it manual or do you have this scripted?
In particular, do you use a pre-generated sysroot with Bionic or do you build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24196
Bug 24196 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19495
Bug 19495 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
Bug 21334 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16612
Bug 16612 depends on bug 24882, which changed state.
Bug 24882 Summary: [meta-bug] Non-refcounted, moveable basic_string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24882
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
--- Comment #51 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is no longer an issue when using the new non-reference-counted std::string
implementation in GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65494
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 23 12:47:54 2015
New Revision: 221592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65494
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35108&action=edit
gcc5-pr65504.patch
Patch I'm going to bootstrap/regtest now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65473
--- Comment #2 from Louis Dionne ---
Does the standard specify which headers should define those macros? If not,
then it's a QOI issue that could easily be solved. In all cases, does stdcxx
document which headers must be included in order to get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
