https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #3)
> I'll follow up with a documentation patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01136.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69849
Bug ID: 69849
Summary: Some spec functions are undocumented in
doc/invoke.texi
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69040
--- Comment #3 from Sudip ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #2)
> Thanks for the holiday gift. :)
> (Thanks for entering a report.)
A gentle ping..
Any idea when this might get resolved.
regards
sudip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67599
Sudip changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69794
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69794
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Feb 17 04:38:15 2016
New Revision: 233483
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233483&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-02-16 Tim Shen
PR lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68959
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra ---
*** Bug 68959 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69794
--- Comment #3 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Feb 17 03:33:02 2016
New Revision: 233482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233482&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-16 Tim Shen
PR libstdc++/69794
* include/bits/reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68959
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69848
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 37717
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37717&action=edit
better code from hand optimizing the gcc output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69848
--- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 37716
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37716&action=edit
code generated by -O2 -ftree-vectorize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69848
Bug ID: 69848
Summary: poor vectorization of a loop from SPEC2006 464.h264ref
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48344
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
--- Comment #37 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 17 00:50:23 2016
New Revision: 233481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233481&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/10200
PR c++/69753
* call.c, cp-tree.h, na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69753
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 17 00:50:23 2016
New Revision: 233481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233481&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/10200
PR c++/69753
* call.c, cp-tree.h, nam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69645
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #12 from Doug Gilmore ---
> Yes, I proposed some cleanup passess after vectorization but richi
> thinks it's genrally expensive. So what's implmentation complexity
> of pass_dominator?
One thing we might consider is only enable it wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48344
--- Comment #5 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Tue Feb 16 23:12:19 2016
New Revision: 233477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-02-16 Kelvin Nilsen
PR Target/48344
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
--- Comment #9 from Jan Kratochvil ---
-O2 -g does not show this problem so I am testing it with -O0 -g below:
g++ (GCC) 4.7.3 20130221 (prerelease)
0x00400748 <+4>: sub$0x10,%rsp
=> 0x0040074c <+8>: mov0x20090
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> regressed at -O2 with r204454.
That just points to the -O2 regression, -O1 would have happened at a different
point as VRP is enabled at -O2 and above.
I susp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
The following options were used for LRA code generation:
-DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -I. -g -mlittle -save-temps=obj -ffast-math -O3
-mveclibabi=mass -mcpu=power8 -mrecip=rsqrt -fpeel-loops -funroll-loops
-ftree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 37715
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37715&action=edit
operf output showing hotspots for reload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 37714
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37714&action=edit
operf output showing hotspots for LRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 37713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37713&action=edit
Assembler code produced by reload of the two hot functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 37712
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37712&action=edit
Assembler code produced by LRA of the two hot functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 37711
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37711&action=edit
Reduced preprocessed file containing just the two hot functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 37710
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37710&action=edit
Bitmap.i file that contains the two hot functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69752
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Feb 16 21:37:01 2016
New Revision: 233476
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233476&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR69752 fix.
PR rtl-optimization/69752
* ira.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
Bug ID: 69847
Summary: Spec 2006 403.gcc slows down with -mlra vs. reload on
PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #25 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #23)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #21)
> > Although in C a static const is not really like a #define
>
> Why not? Many C projects try to avoid the prepr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Feb 16 21:13:59 2016
New Revision: 233475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233475&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport lra-remat fix from mainline, PR68730
PR rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69742
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE|[4.9/5 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69742
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Feb 16 21:10:00 2016
New Revision: 233474
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233474&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-16 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/69742
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #26 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Feb 16 21:09:43 2016
New Revision: 233473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233473&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix bswap optimization on big-endian (PR69714, 67781).
PR tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Probably extract_muldiv... It does check TREE_OVERFLOW, but for some reason
only aborts if the result is INT_MIN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
For C++98, this is undefined code because dummy is not a POD. For C++11, I
don't know if it is undefined or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
Bug ID: 69846
Summary: empty struct value fails to pass properly
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69835
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 20:46:17 2016
New Revision: 233472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233472&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69835
* common.opt (Wnonnull-compare): New warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
Bug ID: 69845
Summary: Expression getting incorrectly optimized after being
rewritten by compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's a patch:
Index: frontend-passes.c
===
--- frontend-passes.c (Revision 233410)
+++ frontend-passes.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -153,7 +153,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
This is seriously strange.
Looking into this...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #25 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Is Bend's fix okay for gcc-5 branch?
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69706
--- Comment #7 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm leaning towards fixing both the ICE and the ABI bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For
struct sockaddr;
struct sockaddr *foo (void);
struct __attribute__ ((may_alias)) sockaddr
{
};
struct sockaddr *
foo (void)
{
return (struct sockaddr *) 0;
}
we reject it in C and ICE in C++:
internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, is this fixed now, or are we waiting for a different fix from Thomas?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69657
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 16 19:01:49 2016
New Revision: 233470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69657
* name-lookup.c (lookup_qualified_name): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, while there can't be dereferences, there can be pointers to the struct,
the question is if we can fix them all up to make them ref-all afterwards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Is the forward declaration here in glibc headers?
> If yes, using __attribute__((may_alias)) there too wouldn't hurt.
> Or do you mean users forward declare stan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69844
Bug ID: 69844
Summary: Possibly bogus error: unknown type name in ObjC code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 37707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37707&action=edit
A patch to fix this.
This patch enables the error message. It regression tests OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69706
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Something like:
> #!/bin/sh
> .../cc1plus -quiet ...opts... -fsanitize=address -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
> pr69833.ii 2>&1 | awk '/may be used uninitialized in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
Bug ID: 69843
Summary: C++: Inconsistent treatment of may_alias attribute and
forward declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Can you delta reduce or creduce tree-vect-patterns.ii with a test that it
> emits
> this warning with -fsanitize=address and does not without it?
I've just done,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Something like:
#!/bin/sh
.../cc1plus -quiet ...opts... -fsanitize=address -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
pr69833.ii 2>&1 | awk '/may be used uninitialized in this
function/{seen=seen+1;next}/error:/{exit 1}END{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Marking resolved-fixed.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64748
--- Comment #7 from jnorris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jnorris
Date: Tue Feb 16 16:27:11 2016
New Revision: 233466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
PR c/64748
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Feb 16 16:22:28 2016
New Revision: 233465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233465&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport "Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69842
Bug ID: 69842
Summary: Parameter deduction in polymorphic lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69801
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:34:07 2016
New Revision: 233459
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233459&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/69801
* gcc.dg/pr69801.c: Add empty dg-optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64748
--- Comment #6 from jnorris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jnorris
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:29:04 2016
New Revision: 233458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/64748
gcc/c/
* c-parser.c (c_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69820
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:16:48 2016
New Revision: 233457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69820
* tree-vect-patterns.c (type_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Exposes a similar issue in stmt_kills_ref_p which does
2248 /* Just compare the outermost handled component, if
2249 they are equal we have found a possible comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69820
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wrong-code issue fixed, the ICE fix is still pending review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:15:40 2016
New Revision: 233456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69764
PR rtl-optimization/69771
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69771
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:15:40 2016
New Revision: 233456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69764
PR rtl-optimization/69771
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #32 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:13:05 2016
New Revision: 233455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Adjust tests after fix for PR 65932
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #19 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:11:26 2016
New Revision: 233454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signedness in PROMOT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #31 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:11:26 2016
New Revision: 233454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signedness in PROMOT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:00:45 2016
New Revision: 233453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233453&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is that
&MEM[(const struct B[2] &)p1_2(D)][1]
and
&MEM[(const int[2] &)p1_2(D)][1]
are considered equal even though we have int[] vs. B[] and thus different
element sizes and different offse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69796
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #23 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Feb 16 14:42:59 2016
New Revision: 233452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233452&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix bswap optimization on big-endian (PR69714, 67781).
PR tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69841
Bug ID: 69841
Summary: Wrong template instantiation in C++11 on armv7l
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
Bug ID: 69840
Summary: two ASAN help nits
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69839
Bug ID: 69839
Summary: cross-compiling programs w/-fsanitize=address fails:
ld: warning: libstdc++.so.6, needed by libasan.so, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Feb 16 13:49:22 2016
New Revision: 233450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233450&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport "Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 37705
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37705&action=edit
Reload dump (broken)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Bug ID: 69838
Summary: [regression] Lra deletes EH_REGION
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc|[4.9/5 Regression] gcc ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #4 from Martin Reinecke ---
Any progress on this?
I fear that this might affect quite many people once strings of allocatable
length become more popular in Fortran ... and I sure hope they will!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress with this? If the aarch64 part is approved and arm approval is
not coming soon, please consider applying at least the aarch64 part.
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
