https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
There is something strange about this bug. I compiled an arm-linux-gnueabihf
gcc only (using make all-gcc) twice, once with an arm-none-eabi cross binutils
in the PATH and once without. The bug is repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66562
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66562
Bug ID: 66562
Summary: ICE with gfortran-5.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
The issue is that C FE overloads TYPE_VFIELD by C_TYPE_INCOMPLETE_VARS and
dangle the pointers.
I already work around that in verify_type but the workaround assumes that only
main variants get C_TYPE_INCOMPLETE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66561
Bug ID: 66561
Summary: __builtin_LINE at al. should yield constant
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #11 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #9)
> > I see, thanks. Will there be no more releases on the 4.9 branch?
>
> There will be more. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66527
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's a slightly different test case showing a similar problem and pointing
out that the issue isn't specific to initializers. Also, the warning at the
end is incorrect (probably the fallout from the prior e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
--- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Tue Jun 16 20:11:41 2015
New Revision: 224538
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224538&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-06-02 Jim Wilson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59682
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59682
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 16 20:07:57 2015
New Revision: 224537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224537&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-16 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/59682
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:19:45PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > I have
> > >
> > > if (!sym->value)
> > > goto error;
> > >
> > > wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jun 16 19:44:05 2015
New Revision: 224535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224535&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/66539: Properly add testcase
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 16 19:29:19 2015
New Revision: 224534
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224534&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66536
* tree.c (replace_placeholders_r) [CONSTRUCTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 16 19:29:09 2015
New Revision: 224533
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224533&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58063
* tree.c (bot_manip): Remap SAVE_EXPR.
Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #7 from Jennifer Yao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Does this patch fix it?
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ proc libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jun 16 18:13:44 2015
New Revision: 224531
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224531&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/66539: Add parentheses as needed to gcc_jit_object_get_debug_str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65393
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 16 17:53:52 2015
New Revision: 224530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224530&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65393
* src/c++11/thread.cc (thread::_M_make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bug 37021 depends on bug 56766, which changed state.
Bug 56766 Summary: Fails to combine (vec_select (vec_concat ...)) to (vec_merge
...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Jun 16 17:14:00 2015
New Revision: 224527
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224527&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56766
* config/i386/sse.md (*avx_addsubv4df3_1): N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56776
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Oops, wrong PR nubmer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #27 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #26)
> I will open a new PR for this ...
PR 66560
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66560
Bug ID: 66560
Summary: Fails to generate ADDSUBPS
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I know what the bug is. If the container used
allocator_traits::construct() as it's supposed to then scoped_allocator_adaptor
would work.
The problem is that std::list is missing all C++11 allocator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56776
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Jun 16 17:14:00 2015
New Revision: 224527
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224527&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56776
* config/i386/sse.md (*avx_addsubv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
--- Comment #2 from David Krauss ---
That bug only mentions missing allocator_traits support.
It looks like the problem here is that _List_node declares a member _Tp and
initializes it, whereas it should declare aligned storage for a _Tp and let
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51848
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=66547
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Peters ---
Thanks for looking into that; you are correct.
And I feel rather stupid as, when testing to double-check your assessment, I
found that the stack was not aligned before the function starts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||potswa at mac dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
Bug ID: 66559
Summary: Uses-allocator construction disregarded by
list::emplace_back
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66557
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #1 from kar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59682
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This generalizes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947, but
vectorizing the predicate as a reduction is not sufficient here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
--- Comment #1 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Strategy could be similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
except finding the last bit rather than the first (and no jump out of the
loop).
That is, in the loop body:
v_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
Bug ID: 66558
Summary: Missed vectorization of loop with control flow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #16 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org ---
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:03 AM, christian.eggers at kathrein dot de
wrote:
> Shall I also test the other patch?
The out-of-ssa patch is unfinished, and won't work without more changes.
Jim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #26 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #25)
> > Richi, please note that tree-vectorizer doesn't vectorize bar_v2df, at least
> > there is no VEC_PERM_EXPR in the .optimized dump:
> >
> > void bar_v2df (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66200
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Jun 16 15:26:41 2015
New Revision: 224524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/66200 on the 4.9 branch
Define TARGET_RELAXED_ORDER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #15 from Christian Eggers ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #14)
> Created attachment 35775 [details]
> A possibly better patch, to modify ARM port to stop changing signed HI/QI to
> unsigned.
>
> This would require performanc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
--- Comment #1 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(insn 22 94 24 4 (set (reg:SI 140 [ g+2 ])
(zero_extend:SI (mem/c:HI (post_modify:SI (reg/f:SI 156)
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI 156)
(const_int 20 [0x14])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 16 15:00:03 2015
New Revision: 224523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224523&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-16 Richard Biener
Revert
2015-06-01 Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65718
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 65718 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 16 14:56:50 2015
New Revision: 224522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224522&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-16 Richard Biener
Revert
2015-06-01 Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so we don't limit group sizes to multiples of nunits which means
vect_transform_slp_perm_load misses an early out. This is then also a missed
optimization as we don't consider the three SLP loads permut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 16 14:48:56 2015
New Revision: 224521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66387
* pt.c (tsubst_copy) [VAR_DECL]: Use process_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Reproduces on x86_64 with -O -ftree-loop-vectorize -march=corei7 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66557
Bug ID: 66557
Summary: gfortran gives segfault error when trying to replace
file?
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
renlin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
Bug ID: 66556
Summary: Wrong code-generation for armv7-a big-endian at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 16 14:25:55 2015
New Revision: 224520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-16 Richard Biener
Revert
2015-06-01 Richa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63807
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
Bug ID: 66555
Summary: Fails to warn for if (j == 0 && i == i)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #9)
> I see, thanks. Will there be no more releases on the 4.9 branch?
There will be more. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg00163.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Backporting the fix from comment#8 to the 4.9 branch makes us run into PR64829.
spawn /home/abuild/rguenther/gcc49-g/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/abuild/rguenther/gcc49-g/gcc/
/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-4_9-branch/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
Bug ID: 66554
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE (in expand_fix, at optabs.c:5365)
on aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66553
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a false error really.
Because There is a mutex lock around the code that does any of the stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Salvatore Filippone from comment #12)
> Created attachment 35763 [details]
> test case
Confirmed - though more like PR66251. This issue seems to be present in
most of the vectorizable_* routi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66553
Bug ID: 66553
Summary: openmp tasks produce libgomp warnings with
fsanitize=thread
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66551
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> So this is a full 64-bit compiler and not the 32-bit sparc64 compiler
> usually built on Debian? If so, what base compiler are you using (gcc -v)?
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #9 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #5)
> > The warning is still produced with gcc 4.9.2 (surely that's supported?)
>
> The warning isn't given for 5.1 and trunk (not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #5)
> The warning is still produced with gcc 4.9.2 (surely that's supported?)
The warning isn't given for 5.1 and trunk (not sure what I tested before).
(In reply to Gubb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #7 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> > > The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate
> > > initi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #6 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> > The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate
> > initialization, but is in fact value initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #5 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> > Therefore no field initializers are involved. The warning in this situation
> > is surely incorrect? I think the original bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63807
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
Summary|r224314 causes I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
>
> --- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #23)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66551
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64857
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> and doesn't include or .
This part was fixed in r224425
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> Therefore no field initializers are involved. The warning in this situation
> is surely incorrect? I think the original bug report was correct and the
> problem shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate
> initialization, but is in fact value initialization (because this is a class
> type with a defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66547
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 35788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35788&action=edit
Set PATH for all testsuites not just for libstdc++
Since the problem isn't specific to libstdc++ we should fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Does this patch fix it?
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
@@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ proc libstdc++_init { testfile } {
if [info exists env(LD_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The thing is that if you poison at the end of destructor, you need to
> unpoison it again somewhere, except for file scope variables that when they
> are destructe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The thing is that if you poison at the end of destructor, you need to unpoison
it again somewhere, except for file scope variables that when they are
destructed supposedly can't be constructed again.
For auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
Bug ID: 66552
Summary: Missed optimization when shift amount is result of
signed modulus
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
How about adding:
--cut here--
Index: g++.dg/lto/pr65276_0.C
===
--- g++.dg/lto/pr65276_0.C (revision 224475)
+++ g++.dg/lto/pr65276_0.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66551
Bug ID: 66551
Summary: [SPARC64] Fails to bootstrap in stage 3 with linker
error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
92 matches
Mail list logo
