https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66306
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Jun 24 06:50:53 2015
New Revision: 224875
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224875&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR66306: Fix match_dups on swapped operands.
2015-06-24 Andreas Kreb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66647
Bug ID: 66647
Summary: [5/6 regression] ICE: in instantiate_class_template_1,
at cp/pt.c:9254
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66168
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #13)
> Thanks doko. I meant to do it today but lacked the time. As to the variation
> issue I've been experiencing, I'll create a new PR when I isolate the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65803
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65803
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jun 24 04:22:39 2015
New Revision: 224866
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224866&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65803
* config/bfin/bfin.c (hwloop_optimize): Ini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30044
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #15)
> The commit caused regressions on some benchmarks. Test to reproduce:
> (compilations flags: -Ofast)
>
> int foo (int flag, char *a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66646
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With Ofast optimization level.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66646
Bug ID: 66646
Summary: small loop turned into memmove because of tree ldist
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66449
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65882
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65882
--- Comment #7 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Author: miyuki
Date: Wed Jun 24 00:53:02 2015
New Revision: 224864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2015-06-20 Mikhail Maltsev
PR c++/65882
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30044
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Tue Jun 23 23:41:51 2015
New Revision: 224859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224859&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Fix PR c++/30044
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.c (cp_parse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Colin MacKenzie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||colin.mackenzie at ineoquest
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65811
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #18 from Jim Wilson ---
Ultimately, I believe that this is an ARM backend bug. PROMOTE_MODE and
TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE should not behave differently. It would help if
the PROMOTE_MODE macro was merged with the TARGET_PROMOTE_F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> The testcase from Comment #1 fails.
Got it. LRA miscompiles "f".
Function "f" of the testcase from Comment #1 compiles (-O2 -m32 -mregparm=3)
to:
f.1485:
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #17 from Jim Wilson ---
I've been researching how the ARM PROMOTE_MODE reached its current state.
There are a number of issues here.
1) There is a comment that says zero extension is faster for char than signed
extension. This is o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #32 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #31)
Yes, your insn_and_split is quite same with the one I've tried first
and it resolved this case too. The volatile will work of cause.
The CSE in problem was done b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> A better testcase:
Nope. This one works OK. The testcase from Comment #1 fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|uros at gcc dot gnu.org|ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66373
--- Comment #5 from John Slayton ---
valgrind revealed many memory leaks. I plugged most of them and the new
source code compiles and runs well on Red Hat 4.9.2-6.
Conclusion: no bug in gcc version.
thanks for your time.
John Slayton
On Mon,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66645
--- Comment #5 from Benoit Gschwind ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> gcc-4.8.4 is no longer supported. Please use a more recent compiler.
> 4.9, 5.1 and 6.0 compile the testcase without any issues.
thank you, I tryed gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66645
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66645
--- Comment #3 from Benoit Gschwind ---
Created attachment 35837
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35837&action=edit
s file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66645
--- Comment #2 from Benoit Gschwind ---
Created attachment 35836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35836&action=edit
ii file for the coresponding code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66645
--- Comment #1 from Benoit Gschwind ---
Created attachment 35835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35835&action=edit
gcc outputs and version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66645
Bug ID: 66645
Summary: templated lambda as default parameter in template
constructor raise internal error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66644
--- Comment #1 from Joel Yliluoma ---
The last code piece should have test2{0,0}; there. Something ate a couple of
characters off the end of that line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66644
Bug ID: 66644
Summary: Rejects C++11 in-class anonymous union members
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66639
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.3 |---
--- Comment #14 from mrs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66639
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66635
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66632
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66632
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66643
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66138
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
--- Comment #2 from bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66574
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63408
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 35833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35833&action=edit
current patch.
Patch I'm testing - this is based on a 4.9 tree where I could easily replicate
the probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66643
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Minimalistic code :
$ cat z_write_none.f90
program p
write (*)
end
$ gfortran -g -O0 -Wall -fcheck=all z_write_none.f90
$ a.out
At line 2 of file z_write_none.f90 (unit = 6, file = 'stdout')
Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66643
Bug ID: 66643
Summary: Missing compilation error for formatted data transfer
without format
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66642
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35832&action=edit
entire testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66642
Bug ID: 66642
Summary: transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt doesn't use result of
low iteration count loop
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66151
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66254
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66254
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 23 15:42:31 2015
New Revision: 224851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66254
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65375
--- Comment #10 from Jim Wilson ---
Improved, but not completely resolved. We still get unnecessary orr
instructions, same as in comment 2. This is partly an issue with the register
allocator not handling partially overlapping register reads/wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66254
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Dup of c++/60994. Let's play safe and add the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66450
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 66450, which changed state.
Bug 66450 Summary: [5 Regression][C++11][constexpr] Issues when delegating
implicit copy constructor in constexpr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66450
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66478
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66477
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66641
--- Comment #1 from Andrey V ---
Citations for grammar: 7.1 [dcl.spec]; 7.3.4 [namespace.udir]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65878
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xyshh94225 at hotmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66641
Bug ID: 66641
Summary: An instance of an attribute-specifier-seq implies a
simple-declaration while C++11 permits
attribute-declaration and using-directive
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65879
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 23 14:29:51 2015
New Revision: 224847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65879
* tree.c (no_linkage_check): Skip the 'this'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65879
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 23 14:28:55 2015
New Revision: 224846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65879
* tree.c (no_linkage_check): Skip the 'this'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65879
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 23 14:08:30 2015
New Revision: 224844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224844&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65879
* decl.c (grokfndecl): Check the linkage of c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 23 14:08:19 2015
New Revision: 224842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224842&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66542
* decl.c (expand_static_init): Make sure the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66501
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 23 14:08:25 2015
New Revision: 224843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66501
* class.c (type_has_nontrivial_assignment): N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66636
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 23 13:56:34 2015
New Revision: 224841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224841&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66636
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
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=63408
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Itay Perl from comment #10)
> A few examples:
>
> a=100, b=0x7fff -O0: 0.0 -O3: 200.0
> a=0, b=0x7fff/100.0f -O0: -1.0 -O3: 1.0
> a=0, b=-0x7fff/100.0f -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #31 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #29)
> Unfortunately, 4.9 and later compilers 'optimize' the above code
> to the code like
Just for my understanding ...
In the pattern ...
(define_expand "GOTaddr2pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66640
Bug ID: 66640
Summary: Symbolic (addr2line) backtrace handler sometimes does
not terminate when using OpenMP
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65375
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66639
Bug ID: 66639
Summary: Feature request C++: mark __func__ , __FUNCTION__ &
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ as constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63408
--- Comment #10 from Itay Perl ---
A few examples:
a=100, b=0x7fff -O0: 0.0 -O3: 200.0
a=0, b=0x7fff/100.0f -O0: -1.0 -O3: 1.0
a=0, b=-0x7fff/100.0f -O0: 1.0 -O3: -1.0
Replacing vfma with vfms sounds correct to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66637
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66638
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66638
Bug ID: 66638
Summary: [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on x86-64
with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66637
Bug ID: 66637
Summary: [6 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63408
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Itay Perl from comment #7)
> Any news? This bug still prevents us from compiling our code with
> optimizations.
>
> Thanks.
Sorry to have dropped the ball on this one - does replacing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66636
Bug ID: 66636
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy,
at tree-vect-stmts.c:1590
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Thanks doko. I meant to do it today but lacked the time. As to the variation
issue I've been experiencing, I'll create a new PR when I isolate the source of
variation.
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Tue Jun 23 10:08:11 2015
New Revision: 224833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-23 Matthias Klose
PR target/66483
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66413
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 23 10:02:38 2015
New Revision: 224831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66631
--- Comment #16 from Stas Sergeev ---
Actually, Andrew, do you think this is even
TLS specific? No segregs are restored at all (not even DS,
I was wrong saying it is), so is it guaranteed, if FS
is restored by some other means, that gcc will not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66449
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to amker from comment #3)
> Author: amker
> Date: Tue Jun 23 02:27:49 2015
> New Revision: 224769
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224769&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
>
> PR tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66635
Bug ID: 66635
Summary: g++ ICE when compiling constexpr code with comma
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66633
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #6 from ludo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ludo
Date: Tue Jun 23 09:26:54 2015
New Revision: 224830
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224830&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 65711
* config/arm/linux-elf.h (LINUX_TARGET_LI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #5 from ludo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ludo
Date: Tue Jun 23 09:21:44 2015
New Revision: 224829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 65711
* config/arm/linux-elf.h (LINUX_TARGET_LI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #4 from ludo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ludo
Date: Tue Jun 23 09:16:14 2015
New Revision: 224828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 65711
* config/arm/linux-elf.h (LINUX_TARGET_LI
1 - 100 of 344 matches
Mail list logo
