https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
--- Comment #6 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-fno-tree-forwprop works.
forwprop propagates:
vect__11.22_96 = (vector(4) float) vect_c.21_94;
vect__13.24_98 = (vector(4) signed int) vect__11.22_96;
into:
vect__13.24_98 = (vector(4) signed int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66580
Bug ID: 66580
Summary: max reduction does not auto vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
It seems the problem is adjacent insns that need R0:
(insn 10503 2627 2628 402 (set (reg:SI 2424)
(sign_extend:SI (mem:QI (plus:SI (reg/v/f:SI 243 [ p2 ])
(const_int 2 [0x2])) [0 MEM
duce it with -O2 -fpic -m4 -ml, though the bug looks a bit
> fragile like as other RA related bugs. I've attached unreduced test
> case. sh-elf compiler ICEs for this test case even with -O2 only here.
Confirmed with
gcc version 6.0.0 20150617 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #13 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9)
> > It's been more than a month without any activity to fix this. There's now
> > also
> > PR testsuite/65944
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66572
--- Comment #3 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Started with r222408. The commit message says:
PR c/63357
* c-common.c (warn_logical_operator): Warn if the operands have the same
expressions.
* doc/invoke.texi: Update description of -Wlogical-op.
Apper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66579
--- Comment #1 from Nicolai Stange ---
Created attachment 35798
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35798&action=edit
Output of `gcc -S -gsplit-dwarf' on Testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66579
Bug ID: 66579
Summary: frv target: -gsplit-dwarf confuses assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||potswa at mac dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
--- Comment #15 from David Krauss ---
> On 2015–06–18, at 5:58 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> These changes shouldn't affect the ABI.
Eh… the simplest case of a fancy pointer is a raw pointer to a class derived
from value_type. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
c.f. http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2261
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Krauss from comment #13)
> 1. Line 304: rebind isn’t an official member of allocator_traits. Prefer
> rebind_alloc.
That isn't allocator_traits, it's __gnu_cxx::__alloc_traits, which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
--- Comment #13 from David Krauss ---
Nice!
Just a few things:
1. Line 304: rebind isn’t an official member of allocator_traits. Prefer
rebind_alloc.
2. _M_put_node is assuming no fancy pointers: its parameter is a
_Node_alloc_traits::pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 35796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35796&action=edit
Draft patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66061
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66515
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 17 20:45:32 2015
New Revision: 224581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66515
* call.c (implicit_conversion): Call reshape_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 17 20:36:42 2015
New Revision: 224580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++11 allocator support for std::list.
PR libstdc++/55409
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 66383, which changed state.
Bug 66383 Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr on this passed in
inline initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66383
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66383
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66517
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66445
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||megahallon at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66445
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> r221586 in particular.
There is no openmp change in that revision. :-/
--- comment_0.f90.003t.original.good2015-06-17 21:29:00.667012376 +0200
+++ comment_0.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
Bug ID: 66578
Summary: [F2008] Invalid free on allocate(...,source=a(:)) in
block
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66577
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 17 18:14:49 2015
New Revision: 224572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66571
* pt.c (tsubst_omp_clause_decl): New function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 17 18:11:42 2015
New Revision: 224571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66429
* omp-low.c (expand_omp_taskreg, expan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 17 18:10:23 2015
New Revision: 224570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-17 Jakub Jelinek
PR middle-end/66429
* omp-low
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 17 18:01:05 2015
New Revision: 224569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66571
* pt.c (tsubst_omp_clause_decl): New function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66572
--- Comment #2 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> Why is it a regression?
Because GCC 5.1 and 4.9.2 do not issue such warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 17 17:59:25 2015
New Revision: 224568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66429
* omp-low.c (expand_omp_taskreg): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I suppose it doesn't matter much to me one way or another. It's between you
and your team leader.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66577
Bug ID: 66577
Summary: ICE with gfortran-5.1.0 in
generate_finalization_wrapper
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 35795 [details]
> gcc6-pr66571.patch
>
> Better patch.
OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66576
Bug ID: 66576
Summary: Use -fopt-info for front-end passes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66575
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
The above sources can be reduced further. The part below "contains"
(inclusive contains) is not needed to produce the effect :
$ cat zlcti_4.f90
module m
interface operator (.f.)
proc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66575
Bug ID: 66575
Summary: Endless compilation on missing end interface
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056
--- Comment #4 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
These two do not circle around,
$ cat y1.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n = 1
1 !
2 !
end type
type(t) :: a
print *, a
end
$ cat y2.f90
program p
type t
intege
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056
--- Comment #3 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
The following test file generates an endless compilation for every
subroutine. It's worth looking deeper.
$ cat type_with_lonely_numbers.f90
program p
call s1
call s2
call s3
call s4
cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Hmm, there is always an ICE on my environment, for any used options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66572
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65317
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
> It seems that it's better to allow any constant for the *andsi_compact
> pattern and split out the constant load if it doesn't fit into K08. An and
> with constant 0x800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66528
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> diagnostic_finish tries to free the output_buffer,
> but the error_buffer is statically allocated. I think this should be enough:
>
> --- error.c (revi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
--- Comment #2 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I was asked to do that by my team leader in order to track these changes. If
you prefer it not be done that way I prefer that too and won't in the future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51689
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35793|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66553
--- Comment #2 from Julian Taylor ---
if it is a false positive, is there a way to silence it too make the thread
sanitize more useful with openmp task using programs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I don't see any advantage to opening the issue in both issue trackers. Does
this help your process in some way?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
Bug ID: 66574
Summary: Time is provided in millisecond precision instead of
nanoseconds as described in go documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66138
--- Comment #1 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I am not sure, but this appears to be similar to the golang issue I opened
yesterday https://github.com/golang/go/issues/11236 which was closed as a
duplicate of https://github.com/golang/go/issues/7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
Bug ID: 66573
Summary: Unexpected change in static, branch-prediction cost
from O1 to O2.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35793&action=edit
gcc6-pr66571.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63740
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org |vmakarov at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66572
Bug ID: 66572
Summary: [6 Regression] Bogus Wlogical-op warning for operands
coming from template instantiations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66571
Bug ID: 66571
Summary: Template substitution causes some OpenMP rejects-valid
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66570
Bug ID: 66570
Summary: libbacktrace is not installed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 17 14:33:23 2015
New Revision: 224560
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224560&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 #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 17 14:33:17 2015
New Revision: 224559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224559&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=66387
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 17 14:33:08 2015
New Revision: 224558
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224558&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=66450
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 17 14:33:02 2015
New Revision: 224557
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224557&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66450
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression): Av
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 17 14:32:55 2015
New Revision: 224556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66289
* cp-tree.h (TEMPLATE_DECL_COMPLEX_ALIAS_P):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63740
--- Comment #13 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Any progress on this?
This has slipped off my radar. Thanks for the ping, I'm working on this now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63740
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65527
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 65527, which changed state.
Bug 65527 Summary: ICE: in expand_builtin_with_bounds, at builtins.c:7120 with
-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65527
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0, 6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
There's pending patch in ML:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00746.html
I'm going to ping Honza.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.4 |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |3.4.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66562
--- Comment #3 from Dan Kokron ---
@karlg The original code accessed the array with in a loop using i:, so the
proposed workaround doesn't help my case.
PS: Thanks for the advise. Newbie mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress on this? This is a P1 and we'd like to release GCC 5.2 soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952
--- Comment #8 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > So aarch64 has no DImode vectors? Or just no DImode multiply (but it has a
> > DImode vector shift?).
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> So aarch64 has no DImode vectors? Or just no DImode multiply (but it has a
> DImode vector shift?).
Yes, the latter.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So aarch64 has no DImode vectors? Or just no DImode multiply (but it has a
DImode vector shift?). If so this could be handled by a vectorizer pattern
transforming the multiply to a shift.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952
--- Comment #5 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So the above example tends to get fully unrolled, but even on an example with
32 ptrs rather than 4, yes the vectorizer fails because of the multiplication -
but the multiplication is gone by the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Just as a heads up: Once the buildd has finished building the latest
gcc-4.9_4.9.2-21 package, I will update all buildds and reschedule all affected
packages to see if that fixes the problem.
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66569
Bug ID: 66569
Summary: [CHKP]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66568
Bug ID: 66568
Summary: [CHKP] internal compiler error: in
expand_expr_addr_expr_1
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
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=66567
Bug ID: 66567
Summary: [CHKP] internal compiler error: in assign_parms
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
Bug ID: 66566
Summary: [CHKP] ICE in early_inliner: internal compiler error:
in operator[], at vec.h:714
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[Regression] ICE on valid |[5/6 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66557
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66562
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
