https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-02-09 00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42046
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(a?b|1:b&~1) could also be turned into (b&~1)+(a!=0) or (b|1)-(a==0) (or with ^
instead of +-, or | instead of +, etc) but it is quite possible that none of
those are a win.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #19)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #17)
> > I had a go at cross compiling Linux kernel for sh, and got something similar
> > with gcc 5.1.1 dated 20150618
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42046
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missed optimization |missed optimization
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70366
Bug ID: 70366
Summary: chromium fails to build with LTO due to segfault in
ipa-inline-transform.c:inline_call
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69414
--- Comment #2 from Daichi Fukuoka ---
Hi,
I confirmed that the patch had been applied into gomp-4_0-branch.
Thank you very much for fixing the issue.
Regards,
Daichi Fukuoka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Problem ultimately seems to be that we're calling cp_fold_function on fn()
before we call cp_genericize on it which is responsible for fixing up fn()'s
parameter 'v' which is passed by invisible reference. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to psturm from comment #3)
> I understand the test suite cannot contemplate every single combination of
> configure options. However, I would suggest that certain combinations might
> be more comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #3 from psturm at computervoice dot com ---
Created attachment 38064
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38064&action=edit
-default-pie -enable-vtv
I understand the test suite cannot contemplate every single combinati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
Comment #1 was incorrect about the problem starting in r233398. It was my
bswap pattern addition in r233414 that introduced the problem. On the other
hand, I looked at the bswapdi operation in gdb and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I haven't had time to debug it beyond observing in the debugger that
remap_decls() defined in tree-inline.c calls add_local_decl() with the first
argument of null. The argument is cfun (function*).
Both __fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In C++11 dummy is a POD, and passing non-PODs through varargs is
conditionally-supported anyway (and G++ supports it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[5 Regression]
te.^M
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.^M
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.^M
compiler exited with status 1
apinski@arm64:~/src/ilp32/gcc/objdir-ilp32/gcc$ ./xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20160322 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Fou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #19 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #17)
> I had a go at cross compiling Linux kernel for sh, and got something similar
> with gcc 5.1.1 dated 20150618
With recent gcc trunk on x86_64, I get
$ ~/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Mar 22 21:32:34 2016
New Revision: 234409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70232
tree-ssa-threadbackward.c
(fsm_fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Mar 22 21:05:43 2016
New Revision: 234408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Michael Meissner
PR libgcc/70363
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68469
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect it is really a dup of bug 66177.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpetri at izotope dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70365
Bug ID: 70365
Summary: warn_unused_result doesn't warn when the result is a
class with a destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70332
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|static_assert + assert +|[5/6 regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 38063
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38063&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70364
Bug ID: 70364
Summary: gcc.target/i386/cleanup-[12].c don't align stack
properly
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
But we want to avoid the #include .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
--- Comment #3 from Andriy Lysnevych ---
static_assert is not required. This code also crashes:
#include
constexpr int ce(int r) {
assert(r == 3);
return r;
}
const auto c = ce(3);
Problem is in assert called from constexpr function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
Bug ID: 70363
Summary: PowerPC __float128 to long double doesn't link if
built with an assember without ISA 3.0 support
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70302
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70302
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70302
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Mar 22 19:00:14 2016
New Revision: 234406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Ilya Enkovich
PR target/70302
* config/i386/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So for thread paths noted in c#15 we have the following pieces of data
1. 69 statements to copy
2. 7 blocks to copy
3. Threads through latch, but does not create an irreducible loop
4. Eliminates a simp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-03-21 4:45 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
>
> --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Unfortunately I can reproduce neither
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Created attachment 38061
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38061&action=edit
q2.c.290r.final
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
Bug ID: 70362
Summary: Segmentation fault compiling scalar-by-value-4_x.c for
ARM arch < 4
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems this test is the only one in gcc.target/i386 that has
dg-require-effective-target above dg-do.
Can you please try:
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c 2016-01-28
22:02:17.029
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The dup PR 65290 pointed out the requirements were changed by
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#206 -- we still implement the
C++03 rules.
We should fix this. However, the C++11 requirement m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65290
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01255.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70361
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So this is definitely related to the FSM threader not being able to share a
single jump threading path. Here's an example:
j.c.110t.dom2: Registering FSM jump thread: (23, 25) incoming edge; (25, 28)
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69993
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> I see the problem: It's -Wall that suppresses the error.
Yeah, seems with -Wall ctx->quiet is true (probably desirable, for some kind of
warning we don't want to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I see the problem: It's -Wall that suppresses the error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57498
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
--- Comment #4 from James Greenhalgh ---
Hi, sorry I missed this. I need to write a better filter for bugs I'm CCed on,
I'll work on that.
I'm hitting the limits of what I can guess from the Sparc machine files. I
don't understand why we get an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57498
Paul Brannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||curlypaul924 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 38054 [details]
Hmm. Something else must be going on. I've applied your patch on powerpc64le
but it hasn't changed anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
That's odd. I do have local changes in my tree but I verified it on three
other machines. I've retested with today's pristine top of trunk on
powerpc64le, still with no errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-Wunreachable-code does nothing now and has not for a few years now. Support
for it was removed as it provided too many false positives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70361
Bug ID: 70361
Summary: Obviously false code in if not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> My #1 bet would be FSM threading.
I doubt it as if I read the asm differences correctly, GCC 6 just no longer
does store with post increment and that causes reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
... and the testsuite doesn't know how to test the ABI for every configuration
that alters the ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's unsurprising, I'm pretty sure the vtable verification changes the ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
Bug ID: 70360
Summary: --enable-vtable-verify
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Why couldn't STV just "vectorize" AND and NOT patterns and let the combiner
> > combine that in the vectorized code?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70343
--- Comment #2 from tower120 ---
The workaround for all versions is use lambda that doesn't CAPTURE this, e.g.
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/e223ddb156d817c1
struct Empty{};
template
struct Data{
int properties_parcel4[10];
Em
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 22 14:38:42 2016
New Revision: 234405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70251
* ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69993
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Mar 22 14:20:49 2016
New Revision: 234403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69993: improvements to wording of -Wmisleading-indentation
gcc/c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is that there is a PARM_DECL in the IL of the function
which is not listed among DECL_ARGUMENTS of the function:
The function we are in is:
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr(cfun->decl)
foo._omp_fn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Why couldn't STV just "vectorize" AND and NOT patterns and let the combiner
> combine that in the vectorized code?
I think the only thing we miss for that is cor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70340
--- Comment #3 from gccBugs at haatschii dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
Not sure whether I understood you correctly, but I don't think that this is
purely a problem with the complexity/recursion depth. For example the sam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Simpler testcase:
unsigned long long a[64], b[64];
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
a[i] <<= (b[i] - 0x12ULL);
}
int
main ()
{
int i;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
James, could you please have a look? AFAICS, none of the issues mentioned in
PR testsuite/68232 apply to the sparcv9 case: sparc/sparc.h (BRANCH_COST) is >
0.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Bug ID: 70359
Summary: Code size increase for ARM compared to gcc-5.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70162
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #10)
Thanks for the clarification, Nick.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > For stage1, I wonder if it can't move earlier, say before the combiner. If
> > it could, then we could split the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
About the shifting of negative value, wonder if it isn't actually UBSAN bug,
Marek, does C really say that -1 << 0 is invalid, or just -1 << 1?
But, it is trivial to change the testcase so that it is not que
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70358
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70358
Bug ID: 70358
Summary: Several
26_numerics/random/binomial_distribution/operators
etc. tests FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 22 13:23:00 2016
New Revision: 234401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-22 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70333
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70357
Bug ID: 70357
Summary: [openacc][gomp4] ICE on reduction (+:sum) private
(sum)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
Bug ID: 70356
Summary: gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70290
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Tue Mar 22 12:31:12 2016
New Revision: 234399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/
PR target/70290
* call.c (build_conditional_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70290
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
