https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68018
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 22 06:52:00 2015
New Revision: 229162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-10-21 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67989
Sylvestre Ledru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sylvestre at debian dot org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #28 from Rene Koecher ---
(In reply to Giuseppe Ottaviano from comment #26)
Giuseppe, is there an easy way you could provide me with your changes to
alloc_traits.h?
I'd really like to give it a shot against our codebase and see if t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67948
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Oct 22 05:12:32 2015
New Revision: 229161
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229161&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH][ARM] Fix for testcase after r228661
This patch addresses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #29 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Oct 22 04:26:50 2015
New Revision: 229160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64 63304] Fix issue with global state.
Jiong pointe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Summary|[5/6 regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68048
Bug ID: 68048
Summary: Unable to compile
./host-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc/version.c! Can't pass
preprocessor strings!
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68047
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68047
Bug ID: 68047
Summary: diagnose placement new with misaligned buffer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68046
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I wonder if it would be possible to map -ftrapv to something like
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error
(whatever is most closely equivalent to -ftrapv and d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68044
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't think use of -masm=intel is within the scope of what glibc wants
to support for inline asm in its headers. Rather, GCC should be made to
inline the relevant function if it doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66781
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67847
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67847
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 21 22:52:45 2015
New Revision: 229156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-10-21 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66781
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66781
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 21 22:52:45 2015
New Revision: 229156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-10-21 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66781
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68046
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68046
Bug ID: 68046
Summary: -ftrapv doesn't catch leaq-based overflows on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68043
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67966
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68043
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Oct 21 22:24:41 2015
New Revision: 229155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve --help output to generate references to option aliases.
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68045
Bug ID: 68045
Summary: [concepts] segfault in contains_struct_check
../../gcc/gcc/tree.h:2971
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68044
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68044
Bug ID: 68044
Summary: ceil() with -O3 and -masm=intel fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67939
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Oct 21 21:40:05 2015
New Revision: 229153
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229153&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-21 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/67939
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61259
ilja.j.honkonen at nasa dot gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ilja.j.honkonen at nasa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67871
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Roelofs ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02177.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Oct 21 21:14:06 2015
New Revision: 229148
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229148&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/67056
* ipa-polymorphic-call.c (possible_placement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67871
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Roelofs ---
Created attachment 36558
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36558&action=edit
fix implementation (binutils)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67871
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Roelofs ---
Created attachment 36557
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36557&action=edit
fix implementation (gcc)
I've implemented the fix you described in the binutils thread, and it does in
fact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe Ottaviano from comment #26)
> Do you use partial specializations as performance optimizations (thus
> equivalent to the general case) in libstdc++?
No, but doing so for std::allocato
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68043
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68043
Bug ID: 68043
Summary: many undocumented options, missing punctuation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68010
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Chistyakov ---
I simplified the Marcus' code:
Ghoort@blade /cygdrive/c/Projects/bug
$ cat c2.cpp
namespace boost {}
template
struct C {
};
template class StructDecoder : C {
public:
StructDecoder() {
namespa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #16 from Magnus Fromreide ---
Should the importance of this bug be raised?
It is a bit embarrasing that the program
#include
ice's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68018
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I did a test run with r229094 + the patch applied, and there are no ICEs. All
the ICEs archived from older runs are gone, and no new ones are introduced (eg.
everything that failed in the past now compiles fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #26 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #25)
> There was a G++ bug (now fixed) that made void_t not work, try this
> alternative version:
>
> template< class... > struct __voider { using type = void;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67939
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=57360
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #17 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #16)
> reload has traditionally removed subregs of hardregs and passes after reload
> have depended on that behaviour. Doing something similar in lra is
> obvious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67966
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Oct 21 18:00:30 2015
New Revision: 229132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67966
* tree.c (verify_type): Verify that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #2 from gong_su at hotmail dot com ---
Hi Dominik, the command that failed with go1 internal error has a lot of .go
files specified so I don't know which one actually caused the problem. So
instead I can send you the entire Ethereum bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68024
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Oct 21 17:30:20 2015
New Revision: 229131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68024
* c-decl.c (start_function): Warn about vara
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> The runtime version of the test still fails:
>
>
> gcc -O2 -pr67609.c
>
> $ ./a.out
> Aborted
>
> set_lower:
> .LFB518:
> movdqa reg(%rip), %xmm1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68042
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 36556 [details]
> The patch I've posted to gcc-patches ML for review.
I have not tested the part "removes -lc++abi flag for UBSan on Darwin" (later
tonight).
Comment from Iain San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #8 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 36556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36556&action=edit
The patch I've posted to gcc-patches ML for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68042
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
I wonder if the fix would be just output patterns adjustment (just like here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68042
Bug ID: 68042
Summary: [6 Regression]
c-c++-common/asan/(memcmp-1.c|sanity-check-pure-c-1.c)
failures on x86_64-apple-darwin14 after r229111
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I'll do that later today.
pr68042.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55986
--- Comment #5 from Shafik Yaghmour ---
It looks like this case from this Stackoverflow question
http://stackoverflow.com/q/32920229/1708801 is possibly related:
int main(int argc, char**)
{
constexpr int a = argc * 0;
}
gcc treats `argc *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #4 from martin ---
$ ./powerpc-pc-linux-gcc test.c -mcpu=e6500
does that work? (without LTO?)
Yes, It works without -flto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Further tests for ubsan and gcc in progress.
g++/ubsan
=== g++ Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes2950
# of expected failures 49
# of unsupported te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> With the patch in comment 2, bootstrap completed without any problem.
>
> Preliminary tests for g++ and asan
>
> === g++ Summary for unix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67991
--- Comment #7 from Jacob McIntosh ---
Per a thread on the isocpp group(linked in the OP), N4268's wording was
incorporated shortly before C++14's ratification, so it's unclear to me why
this is a C++1z feature and not a C++14 feature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
Hi Richard,
You mean to say that there is no issue with LTO, the error is only due to
addition flags for particular -mcpu.
I am only getting this issue when I passs -flto option with -mcpu=e6500.
Without -flto th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the patch in comment 2, bootstrap completed without any problem.
Preliminary tests for g++ and asan
=== g++ Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes1007
# of u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67635
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
>
> Perhaps we can consider teaching cse to not transform these kinds of
> expressions (c ? x : x + a) if the target has a store_flag/addcc instruction
> of the appropriate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Ok, I guess won't fix here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47879
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
--- Comment #5 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Hi HJ
I added my evaluation to bug. It looks like my changes are not
responsible for ICE.
2015-10-20 13:20 GMT+03:00 hjl.tools at gmail dot com
:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
>
> H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
ryan.burn at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryan.burn at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 36555
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36555&action=edit
First version of the fix.
Dominique, I'm sorry about that. Could you please try attached patch? There may
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67171
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Mikael,
yes, you are absolutely right. I mixed those two up, sorry. My head is in CUDA
programming currently and that's keeping it quite busy. Feel free to review
though :-)
Regards,
Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Yes, this is mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66781
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
Bug ID: 68041
Summary: [6 Regression] Bootstrap broken on
x86_64-apple-darwin14 at revision r229119
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: bloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67171
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66892
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66897
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|apfokin at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66999
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
Bug ID: 68040
Summary: [5/6 Regression] Internal compiler error: Error
reporting routines re-entered.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68031
Mihail Popa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Mihail Popa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Indeed, there is an issue with outer-loop unswitching - it should not be
performed for infinite loops. But if we slightly modify test if finite
outer-loop we will get the same error:
char a;
void fn1(char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68036
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68031
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66583
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Oct 21 09:27:12 2015
New Revision: 229121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67557
* call.c (is_base_field_ref): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66583
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Oct 21 09:27:18 2015
New Revision: 229122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66583
* init.c (innermost_aggr_scope): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67904
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68018
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Oct 21 08:43:44 2015
New Revision: 229120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68018
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67904
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68036
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68031
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 21 08:08:05 2015
New Revision: 229118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229118&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-21 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/68031
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68031
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
