https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
That's an interesting idea - your argument is that if niter analysis was able
to compute an expression for the number of iterations and the cast we are
looking at
is a widening of a BIV then it is ok to ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 35464 [details]
> Follow-up patch fixing latest regression.
>
> With this patch all code samples and the code in the tar-archive compile
> and execute well. This patch will need m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 6 06:47:38 2015
New Revision: 222843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/62283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 62283, which changed state.
Bug 62283 Summary: basic-block vectorization fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #23)
> The bb-slp-14.c testcase now FAILs on Solaris/SPARC. Attaching the dump.
>
> Rainer
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-14.c:19:10:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66032
--- Comment #3 from Chris Johns ---
Built GNU sed from source and added to my path:
ruru rtems $ sed --version
GNU sed version 4.2
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65957
--- Comment #2 from Scott Brozell ---
Ok, we shall add this to the todo list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033
Bug ID: 66033
Summary: rs6000 nops removed by rtl_dce
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66032
--- Comment #2 from Chris Johns ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Have you tried GNU sed rather than BSD sed?
No and a good idea. I will.
FYI I tend to keep the machines used for testing builds clean and minimal to
minimised th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Starke ---
I was able to build r222810 without bootstrap. However, the result remains the
same. I am still getting the following error when linking all together:
lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in add_symbol_to_parti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66032
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Have you tried GNU sed rather than BSD sed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66032
Bug ID: 66032
Summary: RTEMS MIPS build fails on FreeBSD
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 6 02:07:34 2015
New Revision: 222836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 1518
DR 1630
PR c++/54835
PR c++/60417
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 6 02:07:34 2015
New Revision: 222836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 1518
DR 1630
PR c++/54835
PR c++/60417
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66031
Bug ID: 66031
Summary: Spurious array bounds warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61352
--- Comment #12 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Wed May 6 00:33:49 2015
New Revision: 222835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-05 Jack Howarth
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer ---
Created attachment 35471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35471&action=edit
preprocessed testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
Bug ID: 66030
Summary: [5.1.0] std::codecvt_byname missing from libstdc++ DLL
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also what version of binutils is on the system? Can you try using latest
release from FSF rather than SUSE one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59678
--- Comment #19 from Hossein Talebi ---
Hi,
This patch goes to Gfortran 4.8 or the current version? Thank you.
Cheers
H.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM, vehre at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65916
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #1 from JD ---
I compiled with used:
-O3 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects
and tried to link with:
-flto=4 -O3 -fuse-linker-plugin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
Bug ID: 66029
Summary: Build error compiling gcc5.1 using LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66018
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66028
Bug ID: 66028
Summary: false positive, unused loop variable
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66027
Bug ID: 66027
Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: in
odr_types_equivalent_p
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
Also fails on powerpc{-m32,-m64}.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rhalbersma at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
g++ 5.1.0 and current trunk 20150505 won't compile the following code with
-std=c++1y:
constexpr auto fun(int n)
{
switch(n) {
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66025
Bug ID: 66025
Summary: Implement ThreadSanitizer support for IBM z Systems
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66025
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66024
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66024
Bug ID: 66024
Summary: Implement AddressSanitizer support for IBM z Systems
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66023
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66023
Bug ID: 66023
Summary: Investigate and fix IBM z Systems `guality' testsuite
failures
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
--- Comment #3 from Nuno Lopes ---
Created attachment 35467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35467&action=edit
reduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #14 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That solely depends on the availability of reviews. At the moment getting a
review is quite difficult.
Btw, when you can use docker, then there is docker image available at:
https://registry.hub.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue May 5 17:46:31 2015
New Revision: 222820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/66016
runtime: Don't crash in Func.Name if the Func i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I will give it a try as soon as possible. Any idea how long propagation into
the trunk might last?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66022
Bug ID: 66022
Summary: 4.8.4 build fails with stage 2 and 3 comparison error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
--- Comment #2 from Nuno Lopes ---
Created attachment 35465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35465&action=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Starke ---
I have yet to bootstrap the current trunk (r222810). It currently fails with
/usr/new-gcc/bin32/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/usr/new-gcc/bin32/./prev-gcc/
-B/mingw/mingw32/bin/ -nostdinc++
-B/usr/new-gcc/bin32/prev-min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
--- Comment #1 from Nuno Lopes ---
Sorry, a bit more information the problem:
On function void
reduce_args_tactic::imp::populate_decl2args_proc::operator()(app * n), when
compiled with -O0 no call to memory::deallocate(void* p) is made, while wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35407|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
Bug ID: 66021
Summary: GCC miscompiles Z3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Bug ID: 66020
Summary: [6.0 regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-2.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|65983 |
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65983
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Depends on|65915
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 5 16:53:27 2015
New Revision: 222817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65990
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_parse_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue May 5 16:38:57 2015
New Revision: 222816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/66016
runtime: Don't crash in Func.Name if the Func i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue May 5 16:38:45 2015
New Revision: 222815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/66016
runtime: Don't crash in Func.Name if the Func i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64304
--- Comment #8 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Tue May 5 15:59:12 2015
New Revision: 222814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-01-19 Jiong Wang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #31 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> You are missing the point of copy relocations. Consider:
> int a = 1;
> extern int b, c;
> int foo (void)
> {
> return a + b + c;
> }
> compiled with -fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64304
--- Comment #7 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Tue May 5 15:50:18 2015
New Revision: 222812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-01-19 Jiong Wang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #30 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #28)
> (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> > Can you guarantee that the linker won't generate copy relocs for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #27)
> Still, if this were solved properly, relocations that resolved back into the
> executable itself would still be bound locally, even position-dependently if
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
--- Comment #4 from tocarip at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tocarip
Date: Tue May 5 15:43:13 2015
New Revision: 222811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65915
* config/i386/i386.md (vector convert to flo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #28 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #27)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> > Plus, if KDE uses so small binaries, why don't just compile them with -fPIC
> > then?
> > You can then link them as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #27 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> Plus, if KDE uses so small binaries, why don't just compile them with -fPIC
> then?
> You can then link them as normal executables or PIEs, depending on what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tim Ruehsen from comment #28)
> I far as I can read, not a patch is missing. A review + commit is missing.
> How can you ask for more developers (=patches) when the work is ignored ?
> Don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65854
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #26 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, out of interest, what is needed to make this work properly with target
attributes?
What hooks do we need to implement?
Looking at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Target-Attributes.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Plus, if KDE uses so small binaries, why don't just compile them with -fPIC
then?
You can then link them as normal executables or PIEs, depending on what you
prefer, and still it supposedly wouldn't use copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #23)
> $ pmap `pidof qtcreator` | perl -ne '@_ = split / +/; if ($_[6] eq "r-xp" &&
> $_[7] !~ /\[/) { $_[1] =~ s/K//; $total += $_[1]; $bin = $_[1] unless $bin;
> }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #23)
> $ pmap `pidof qtcreator` | perl -ne '@_ = split / +/; if ($_[6] eq "r-xp" &&
> $_[7] !~ /\[/) { $_[1] =~ s/K//; $total += $_[1]; $bin = $_[1] unless $bin;
> } END {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #23 from Thiago Macieira ---
$ pmap `pidof qtcreator` | perl -ne '@_ = split / +/; if ($_[6] eq "r-xp" &&
$_[7] !~ /\[/) { $_[1] =~ s/K//; $total += $_[1]; $bin = $_[1] unless $bin; }
END { print "$bin $total\n"; }'
72 166164
That is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64579
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue May 5 14:27:30 2015
New Revision: 222809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222809&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline.
2015-04-27 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64579
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue May 5 14:25:35 2015
New Revision: 222808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline.
2015-04-27 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #28 from Tim Ruehsen ---
I far as I can read, not a patch is missing. A review + commit is missing.
How can you ask for more developers (=patches) when the work is ignored ?
Don't get me wrong, I just try to understand how this should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64579
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue May 5 14:22:33 2015
New Revision: 222807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline.
2015-04-27 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #27 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #26)
> A good place to start is
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.
> cgi?keywords=easyhack&list_id=116934&order=bug_id&query_format=advanced
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #26 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to pmatos from comment #25)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #24)
> > I can give you many examples of old "must-have" bugs that are "easy" to fix,
> > but simply there is no on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66011
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt ---
> No, I don't think so. The same change was made in GCC 4.9, and it didn't
> cause
> it to XPASS there (looking at gcc-testresults). Also, my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66019
Bug ID: 66019
Summary: Corrupt libstdc++ on AIX 6.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66018
Bug ID: 66018
Summary: opendir configure test not working when
GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tim Ruehsen from comment #23)
> The requested warning is an absolutely must-have (enabled by default).
> Seeing this bug open since 2004 is... well ... I have no words.
GCC needs lots of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #37 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #36)
> I am waiting for an official review of the patch, to be allowed to commit to
> trunk. So I am not waiting on you. :-)
I see. Got it. :D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59000
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52159
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #2 from M. Hanselmann ---
This may be related to bug 63345.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #1 from M. Hanselmann ---
Forgot to add that A. Bougacha has analyzed the issue. According to him it's a
cast (or casts) invoking undefined behaviour.
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23413#c2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
Bug ID: 66017
Summary: Undefined behaviour in std::set
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46029
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947
--- Comment #3 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, you're right, it's not commutative, but then, it doesn't need to be.
If f(x,y) is "(a[x] ? 7 : y)", then f(0, f(1, ...)) = f(1, f(0, ...))
(associative but not commutative), which is all w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > I can't reproduce it on my cross build with
> > -mthumb/-march=armv7-a/-mfloat-abi=hard/-mfpu=vfpv3-d16 unfortunately
>
> with checking=yes,rtl?
Ah yes, with --enable-checking=yes,rtl I c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57271
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Čajka ---
Golang upstream ticket:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/10696
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
