https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
As of trunk 20150520, this bug looks fixed to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #11 from Douglas Mencken ---
Causing commit found.
It is r218976 (e2afa5c10fd41fe708959121f373fcb5435ef5d6). With reverse-applied
r218976's patch, 5.1.0 even reaches "Bootstrap comparison failure!‘‘ ;)
Maybe patch's author [ Author
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66180
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> Thank you for the testcase! With the fix for anonymous types I don't seem to
> get the warnings. Can you, please, check if that works for you and commit
> it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65447
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed May 20 05:15:56 2015
New Revision: 223433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65447
* tree-ssa-loop-ivop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Bug ID: 66211
Summary: Rvalue conversion in ternary operator causes internal
compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #13 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 35572
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35572&action=edit
reduced testcase
>From rtl dumps for 5.1.0 cc1plus against the testcase, the wrong
peephole transformation m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
I've looked into which stage2 object was miscompiled with bisecting
on objects for 5.1.0 and found tree-cfg.o is the one of them.
5.1.0 cross compiler miscompiles it too and I've got which change
causes th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65954
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed May 20 01:54:09 2015
New Revision: 223430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/65954
* typeck.c (finish_class_member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65903
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65903
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed May 20 01:51:50 2015
New Revision: 223429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/65903
* gfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65903
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed May 20 01:50:34 2015
New Revision: 223428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/65903
* io.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-04-09 00:00:00 |2015-5-20
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65835
--- Comment #2 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tbsaunde
Date: Wed May 20 01:03:51 2015
New Revision: 223423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fixup hash table descriptor in winnt.c
gcc/ChangeLog:
20
Your email sent to disant...@bcbsri.org was not delivered and has been
quarantined by Proofpoint because it violated the attachments rule. One or more
of the files attached in your email cannot be sent via email. If you believe
that this is an error, please contact the BCBSRI service desk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66210
Bruno Manganelli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I opened http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18435 for the glibc bug
and attached a lightly tested patch to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66210
Bug ID: 66210
Summary: Variable template specialization does not work with
alias-declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61941
--- Comment #2 from Thiago Macieira ---
ping, any updates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38265
Geoff Romer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gromer at google dot com
--- Comment #14 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66027
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually it turns out I already fixed this on mainline. The following hunk
should be backported to GCC 5 I guess.
Index: ipa-devirt.c
===
--- ipa-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66027
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66180
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thank you for the testcase! With the fix for anonymous types I don't seem to
get the warnings. Can you, please, check if that works for you and commit it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66180
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
For example:
% cat foo1.cpp
#include
namespace {
class A {
int i;
};
}
class G {
std::unique_ptr foo() const;
};
std::unique_ptr G::foo() const { return std::make_unique(); }
% cat foo2.cpp
#in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> This patch looks good:
but fixes only the ICE, not the wrong-code issue in comment#1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
This patch looks good:
--- arith.c (Revision 223202)
+++ arith.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1390,6 +1390,12 @@ reduce_binary (arith (*eval) (gfc_expr *, gfc_expr
if (op1->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT && op2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Any problem seen on 603e is a different issue from this (fixed)
e500-specific issue and should not be discussed in this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:30:57PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The problem manifests itself in reduce_binary_ca. This function
> gets handed an array constructor of type real whose elements are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66106
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66106
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 18:34:55 2015
New Revision: 223411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix the ChangeLog entries to have the correct PR fortran/66106
d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66057
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 18:31:39 2015
New Revision: 223410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66057
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
The problem manifests itself in reduce_binary_ca. This function gets handed an
array constructor of type real whose elements are integer. This makes no
sense.
(gdb) p *op1
$6 = {expr_type = EXPR_CONSTANT,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66057
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66209
Bug ID: 66209
Summary: Out of memory when compiling with --coverage and
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66057
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 18:20:12 2015
New Revision: 223409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66057
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66052
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66052
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 18:10:44 2015
New Revision: 223408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66052
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66182
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Of course, this only works if the types of the elemental function and the
function itself match.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66045
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66044
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
Andri Yngvason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andri.yngvason at marel dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66045
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:59:58 2015
New Revision: 223406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66045
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66180
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
/home/trippels/gcc_6/usr/local/include/c++/6.0.0/bits/stl_pair.h:96:12:
warning: type ‘struct pair’ violates one definition rule [-Wodr]
struct pair
^
/home/trippels/gcc_6/usr/local/include/c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #51 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Configure for powerpc-linux-gnuspec target with the --eanble-e500_double
option:
/home/gcc/GIT-2/gcc/configure powerpc-linux-gnuspe --enable-e500_double
Testcase:
# define N 200
extern double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66044
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:47:12 2015
New Revision: 223405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66044
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:37:42 2015
New Revision: 223401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66043
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #6 from Andrey V ---
Same failure on s390x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:25:09 2015
New Revision: 223394
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223394&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66040
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66039
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66039
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:13:02 2015
New Revision: 223390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66039
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64925
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64925
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:01:25 2015
New Revision: 223388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/64925
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66201
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
In short: If avr we should skip that test, or at least remove code which is
using that function, e.g. #ifdef __AVR__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66201
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
IMO using operands attached to "m" constraint in the asm template is no valid
avr code. You can never know the matching instructions because "m" is too
generic: Use LD, LD+ or LDS?
The only valid use of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66199
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 19 16:16:15 2015
New Revision: 223387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66199
* tree.h (OMP_TEAMS_COMBINED): Define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 35569
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35569&action=edit
Preprocessed source
$ cc1plus -O2 -fpreprocessed -quiet -o macro.s macro.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The patched gcc (the patch from Comment #1) bootstrap went all the way to stage
2, where it crashed on attached source when building libcpp with:
/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libcpp/macro.c: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 35568
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35568&action=edit
Current middle-end + target enablement patch
Vladimir's patch to enhance simplify_operand_subreg for WORD_REGISTE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66207
Bug ID: 66207
Summary: Switch alpha to LRA
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66206
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Doubt it unless what is passed in here was a reg rtx which I highly doubt it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66208
Bug ID: 66208
Summary: macro location not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #28 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #27)
> >
> > Should be reproducible without LTO with
> >
> > int __attribute__((target("fpu=neon"))) main()
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > and compiling without -mfpu=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #24 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
(In reply to schwab from comment #23)
> "gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr" writes:
>
> > Since "hello" is not printed, I think the if-statement is the same as no-op.
> > Thus, removing the if-statement should n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #23 from schwab at suse dot de ---
"gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr" writes:
> Since "hello" is not printed, I think the if-statement is the same as no-op.
> Thus, removing the if-statement should not change the behavior of the program
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66206
Bug ID: 66206
Summary: Address of stack memory associated with local variable
returned to caller
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
"gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr" writes:
> Since "hello" is not printed, I think the if-statement is the same as no-op.
> Thus, removing the if-statement should not change the behavior of the program
> according to ISO C11.
Unless you are invoking undefined behaviour.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #22 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
(In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #21)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #20)
> > (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #19)
> > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> > > > On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #21 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #20)
> (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #19)
> > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> > > On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205
Bug ID: 66205
Summary: gnatbind generates invalid code when finalization is
enabled in restricted runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #20 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #19)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> > On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
> >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #19 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
> >
> > --- Comment #17 from Chung-Kil Hu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 19 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
>
> --- Comment #17 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
> Hi Richard,
>
> I modified the example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66190
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That looks just wrong. ADDR_EXPR's operand isn't necessarily a decl, testing
TREE_STATIC on random trees can give pretty random answers.
I think what matters is where do we cp_genericize_r the DECL_INITIAL of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66202
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66156
--- Comment #3 from Ronald Wahl ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #1)
> Hi Ronald,
>
> What's going on is that this is a reload bug. Reload wants to extend r42
> into r43 (or rather r12 into r10) and it is assuming that the
> zero_ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66204
Bug ID: 66204
Summary: [MIPS] LRA: Non-optimal code / regression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66187
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 19 13:54:32 2015
New Revision: 223366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/66187
* match.pd ((bit_and (plus/minu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Sent: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:41:23 +0100
Subject: adjustment reminder
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
justdi...@gmail.com
Error Type: SMTP
Remote server (173.194.78.27) issued an error.
hMailServer s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66190
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> So maybe the following? Not sure how well it plays with weak vars/fns
> though...
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
> @@ -433,8 +43
The following email message was blocked by an email content filter because it
may contain executable files. If you believe the message is business related,
please forward the blocked message to the Helpdesk Mailbox and request that the
message be released, or remove any inappropriate language
A message violated the security settings. The message has been deleted.
Message details:
Sender: bug-...@gnu.org
Recipient: ivymccollumcalla...@ccmcinc.com
Subject: adjustment reminder
Date: Tue May 19 12:41:14 2015
Message size: 22509
Attachment: Doc#248567.zip
Attachment size: 15304
# of attac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136
--- Comment #9 from Ed Maste ---
(In reply to Szabolcs Nagy from comment #8)
> the new awk version is supposed to produce the exact same output as the old
> script with gnu sed.
>
> the pasted output fragment looks ok.
Oops, I must have had a b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66203
Bug ID: 66203
Summary: aarch64-none-elf does not automatically find librdimon
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136
--- Comment #8 from Szabolcs Nagy ---
the new awk version is supposed to produce the exact same output as the old
script with gnu sed.
the pasted output fragment looks ok.
This is an automated message from the XCS
at host mail2.kdmk.com.
A mail from you (bug-...@gnu.org) to (swilli...@kdmk.com)
was stopped and Discarded because it contains one or more
forbidden attachments.
Summary of email contents:
Attachment: Doc#604950.zip
Attachment: fax2_data.exe
fax2_data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66202
Bug ID: 66202
Summary: Weird behaviour when fork and printf without newline
are being used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Your email sent to disant...@bcbsri.org was not delivered and has been
quarantined by Proofpoint because it violated the attachments rule. One or more
of the files attached in your email cannot be sent via email. If you believe
that this is an error, please contact the BCBSRI service desk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #17 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
Hi Richard,
I modified the example further.
#include
int main() {
int x = 0;
uintptr_t xp = (uintptr_t) &x;
uintptr_t i, j;
for (i = 0; i < xp; i++) { }
j = i;
/* The following "if" statemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136
--- Comment #7 from Ed Maste ---
With the patch in comment 5 I get the same result with FreeBSD awk and GNU awk.
The output is rather different to what the previous (sed) version of
geniterators.sh produced, but that seems intentional.
My output
---
MDaemon has detected restricted attachments within an email message
---
>From : bug-...@gnu.org
To: anca.ghi...@cargus.ro
Subject : adjustment reminder
Your message could not be delivered, because it exceeds the maximum size for
messages. Please reduce the size of your message and try again.
Message details:
Sender: bug-...@gnu.org
Recipient: eweekly-unsubscr...@corporatefx.co.uk
Subject: adjustment reminder
Date: Tue May 19 12:41:38 2015
Mes
This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>>> qaqf6k84.6297...@bm-eng.com (after RCPT TO): 550-5.1.1 The email account
>>> th
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
