https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67550
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotrwn1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Piotr Nycz from comment #2)
> How to get information in which version it is fixed?
> What we discover ourselves:
> 4.9.1 - work
> 4.9.2 - fail
> 4.9.4 - work
> 5.2 - fail
> 6.0 (experimenta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Feb 24 06:45:41 2016
New Revision: 233653
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle
Backported from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69912
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01614.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|load not skinked out of |load not hoisted out of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|load not hoisted out of |load not skinked out of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69935
Bug ID: 69935
Summary: load not hoisted out of linked-list traversal loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69933
Bug ID: 69933
Summary: non-ideal branch layout for an early-out return
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Not a regression, postponed to GCC 7, last patch is at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01303.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69758
PaX Team changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pageexec at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
--- Comment #21 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to PaX Team from comment #20)
> update for gcc-6: /gcc/params.list is also needed now as it gets
> included by params.h.
PR69758 fixes it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126
--- Comment #3 from Michel Valin ---
for what it's worth, the bug is not present in 4.9.1 nor 5.3
Michel Valin
analyste de l'informatique
On 16-02-23 05:30 PM, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126
>
>
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160223 (experimental) [trunk revision 233632] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk abc.c -c -O3
abc.c: In function ‘fn1’:
abc.c:8:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
}
^
0xb5ea1f crash_signal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69930
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 69931 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69931
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Nycz ---
How to get information in which version it is fixed?
What we discover ourselves:
4.9.1 - work
4.9.2 - fail
4.9.4 - work
5.2 - fail
6.0 (experimental) - work
I need to know the newest stable version where it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69931
Bug ID: 69931
Summary: fortran address sanitizer does not work with
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69930
Bug ID: 69930
Summary: fortran address sanitizer does not work with
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk, back port in a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Feb 23 22:53:31 2016
New Revision: 233649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/61156
* scanne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69929
Bug ID: 69929
Summary: Internal compiler error GCC$ ATTRIBUTES STDCALL
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Tue Feb 23 22:28:23 2016
New Revision: 233648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69810
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (zero_extendqi2_dot): Convert fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||developm...@faf-ltd.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925
--- Comment #2 from Peter VARGA ---
I expected honestly this answer but then almost every compiler warning can be
"overruled" by a bad programmer.
By the way I found out this behavior because I used it in STL and there is
almost every parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69928
petensotium at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69928
Bug ID: 69928
Summary: incorrect reference to gcc-plugin.h in plugin
documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 37774
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37774&action=edit
loop inversion sketch
This patch does loop inversion sufficient for scimark. It will break
constexpr, but migh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Yeah, didn't try to figure out whether the C vs. C++ thing is a
> regression. But I suspect the change to the C++ loop lowering.
Yes, the relatively small dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69927
Bug ID: 69927
Summary: Internal compiler error (Segmentation fault) when
compiling FFmpeg 3.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69844
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Feb 23 19:49:31 2016
New Revision: 233644
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/69893 make work with C++11
PR libstdc++/69893
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69844
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 23 19:47:24 2016
New Revision: 233643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233643&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR objc/69844
* c-parser.c (c_parser_for_statement): Prope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #81 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 23, 2016 4:20:48 PM GMT+01:00, "alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
>
>--- Comment #79 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>(In re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926
--- Comment #3 from Keith Godfrey ---
Error seems to be caused by using an incorrect attribute (I used 'range when I
meant 'last).
This is not a priority to fix. I only reported it because it induced an
internal error in the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926
--- Comment #2 from Keith Godfrey ---
Source code attached. Here is code as a comment:
muscles.ads
package Muscles is
type stretch is digits 5 range 0.0 .. 1.0;
type spindle_t is
record
center: stretch := 0.0;
en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926
Bug ID: 69926
Summary: GNAT bug detected -- Storage_Error stack overflow or
erroneous memory access
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926
--- Comment #1 from Keith Godfrey ---
Created attachment 37772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37772&action=edit
specification source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924
derrick at ca dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from der
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> With the patch in comment 6 the test gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 has to be
> updated to
>
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 2012-08-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk. Will leave open for a bit to see if there is any fallout.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch tested. It will be committed soon. Just need to go through the approval
process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Feb 23 18:38:31 2016
New Revision: 233641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/69456
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69759
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Depends on|69780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69780
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69759
Bug 69759 depends on bug 69780, which changed state.
Bug 69780 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align
with small alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69780
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69780
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Feb 23 18:09:37 2016
New Revision: 233640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69759
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Feb 23 18:09:37 2016
New Revision: 233640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:44:28 2016
New Revision: 233638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69126: avoid comparing ad-hoc and non-ad-hoc locations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #29 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:44:28 2016
New Revision: 233638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69126: avoid comparing ad-hoc and non-ad-hoc locations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016
New Revision: 233637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558)
We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016
New Revision: 233637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558)
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #28 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016
New Revision: 233637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558)
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #80 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #79)
> Is the concern that we can't hide this behind an option, as that would
> "drive people away from gfortran" ? If that's the case, can we hide it
> behind an option t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I assume you're compiling as C++11?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is another bug about this specific thing already. But note someone can
do a const_cast and remove the const part and start assigning values to the
array so it is not always considered as unitialized.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925
Bug ID: 69925
Summary: No warning for uninitialized char * passing to
function as const char *
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924
Bug ID: 69924
Summary: gcc5.2 compile Error: std::basic_istream: no match for
'operator>>', while gcc 4.8 works
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65963
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69709
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
FYI, profiledbootstrap works for me including Ada,
see
http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/6.0.0/0.12.fc24/data/logs/s390x/build.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69889
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This looks like a C++ FE bug to me, the operator() method is called with
TREE_ADDRESSABLE argument by value, rather than by reference.
Normally, when the C++ FE goes through build_over_call, convert_for_arg_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69923
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69911
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel at fahlgren dot se
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69923
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fahlgren ---
Created attachment 37770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37770&action=edit
Pre-processed test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69923
Bug ID: 69923
Summary: [6 regression] internal compiler error in cgraphunit.c
when using -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #0)
> With trunk@233631:
>
> > $ cat test.cc
> > struct S2 { virtual ~S2(); };
> > struct S1 {
> > virtual ~S1();
> > S2 * f(bool);
> > };
> > struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #23 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Feb 23 15:57:09 2016
New Revision: 233636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-23 Bernd Edlinger
PR libstdc++/69881
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68963
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, I think it's rather discover_iteration_bound_by_body_walk that merges the
two estimates of 3 iterations from both arms even though those are not based
off the same IV. OTOH the estimates itself assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the patch in comment 6 the test gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 has to be
updated to
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 2012-08-02
01:26:03.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922
Bug ID: 69922
Summary: Bogus -Wnonnull-compare for: ... ?
static_cast(this) : nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #79 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #78)
>
> That would pessimize it too much IMHO.
I'm not sure how to evaluate the pessimization, given it's thought to be a
widespread pseudo-FORTRAN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #78 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
>
> --- Comment #77 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to rguent...@sus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69921
Bug ID: 69921
Summary: Switch OpenACC kernels number of gangs from "decide at
run time" to "decide at compile time"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69919
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Or maybe simply making mem_alloc_description::~mem_alloc_description () empty.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> It may be caused by r233626.
What do you mean by "may be?" I have just double checked that if I
apply the patch to r233489 and run the test, it passes here on my
x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69915
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37768
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37768&action=edit
gcc6-pr69915.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69736
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #77 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #72)
>
> Patch as posted passed bootstrap & regtest. Adjusted according to
> comments but not tested otherwise - please somebody throw at
> unpatch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69915
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69916
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69916
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
