https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70387
Bug ID: 70387
Summary: -fnon-call-exceptions has no effect
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Gladkov Dmitry changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gladkovdmitry17 at yandex dot
ru
--- C
-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160323 (experimental) [trunk revision 234418] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk small.cpp
$ g++-5.3 -Wall small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -Wall small.cpp
small.cpp: In function ‘int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70366
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38076
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38076&action=edit
patch
Hi,
The attached patch suggested by Richard fixes the chromium build.
It passes bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 38075
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38075&action=edit
A patch for testing
Please test this patch as much as possible. I think I have it right, but one
can never te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70385
Bug ID: 70385
Summary: Lambda capture by reference of const reference fails
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70384
Bug ID: 70384
Summary: Unhelpful warnings on invalid initializations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf ---
Independent of the modification in comment #7, there is an issue
with wrong code for the native complex type. Consider:
program p
complex :: z[*], w = 1
real:: x[*], y = 2
type t
complex :: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70383
Bug ID: 70383
Summary: Bogus error when attempting to capture a reference to
function by copy
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70381
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42046
Michael Bruck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] default|[5 Regression] default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70332
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] ICE on |[5 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Mar 23 21:08:32 2016
New Revision: 234443
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234443&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/70347 (default member initializer not picked up by union)
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70332
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Mar 23 21:02:34 2016
New Revision: 234442
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234442&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/70332 (ICE due to aggregate initialization of NSDMI)
gcc/cp/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70381
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Mar 23 20:33:28 2016
New Revision: 234441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-23 Michael Meissner
PR target/70381
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70382
Bug ID: 70382
Summary: Attribute not supported on bit-field declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69773
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #4)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> > Another issue with hard registers that live accros insn with single-reg
> > constraint.
> >
> > *** This bug has been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70023
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #7)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> > *** Bug 69773 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> PR69773 was reported and confirmed more than one mont
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70379
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Is this also the cause of PR 70176 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70176
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
The intention of the "j" operand is to provide an alternative that can easily
set the floating point value to 0 via XXLXOR. If decimal64 0.0 is not all 0
bits, then we shouldn't allow that alternative.
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 23 18:55:38 2016
New Revision: 234439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70001
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_vec_init_1): Reuse C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70363
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One part fixed, the -Wall part still broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70381
Bug ID: 70381
Summary: On powerpc, -mfloat128 is on by default for all VSX
systems
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69315
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70323
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 23 18:45:26 2016
New Revision: 234438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234438&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70323
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70376
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 23 18:42:19 2016
New Revision: 234437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70376
* cp-gimplify.c (genericize_omp_for_stmt): Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69315
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 23 18:36:25 2016
New Revision: 234436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69315
* cp-tree.h (defer_mark_used_calls, deferred_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 23 18:23:04 2016
New Revision: 234434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234434&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70344
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_call_expression): Ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70367
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> And what exactly is your "recent gcc trunk", if it is after or before the
> PR70300 fix.
Before. I downloaded the latest version
Last Changed Author: ktkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69884
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69884
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 23 17:51:56 2016
New Revision: 234433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69884
* c.opt (Wignored-attributes): New option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #36 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #35)
> I don't think guesswork will be very helpful in practice with a corrupted
> #line structure, and errors of this nature shouldn't really occur anyway
> out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70380
Bug ID: 70380
Summary: SFINAE error with constexpr expressions referencing a
non-const variable
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70344
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #35 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I don't think guesswork will be very helpful in practice with a corrupted #line
structure, and errors of this nature shouldn't really occur anyway outside of
artificial testcases. I'm leaning towards either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70379
Bug ID: 70379
Summary: c99_classification_macros_c++98.cc failing with newlib
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #34 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #33)
> It does mean LC_LEAVE, but AFAICT the filename is the file being returned to.
>
> Including a file called "t.h" from "v.c" gives this after -E:
>
> # 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70023
--- Comment #7 from Qirun Zhang ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> *** Bug 69773 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
PR69773 was reported and confirmed more than one month ago. The two bugs share
the same stack trace. IM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So given the conflicts during IRA I can't see a way for IRA to do a better job.
Essentially the key allocno/pseudo wants hard reg 0 to avoid the spillage, but
it also conflicts with hard reg 0.
Prior to C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Slight correction. I was looking at the wrong part of the dump when I said
cse1 didn't change insn 28. It is cse1 that changes insn 28. So this is
strictly an issue with the transformations cse1 makes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> I think that's a fair characterization. The extra copy emitted by the older
> compiler gives the allocator more freedom. With coalescing getting more
> ag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #33 from Bernd Schmidt ---
It does mean LC_LEAVE, but AFAICT the filename is the file being returned to.
Including a file called "t.h" from "v.c" gives this after -E:
# 1 "t.h" 1
int t;
# 2 "v.c" 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #32 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #31)
> I may have been wrong in my earlier question on the mailing list; doesn't
> the flag value of 2 mean "LC_LEAVE"? (is the filename meant to refer to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69773
Chengnian Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #31 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #30)
> I'm just using CPP_W_NONE in the patch I'm testing and that seems to work.
>
> Regarding the error message, here's what we'll get:
>
> 69650.c:4:55: warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #13 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Simple summary.
The test case provided in this PR is resolved by the two patches, but the
problem still exists if the first function in compilation unit triggers the
issue. This is because x86's i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70378
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Starke ---
No warning was observed when using g++ instead of gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
the intended current implementation is to treat 'sum' as firstprivate.
however, putting in an explicit firstprivate causes another different ICE (in
lower_oacc_reductions) -- regardless of whether 'sum' is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70378
Bug ID: 70378
Summary: [5.3] inconsistant warnings with -Wconversion for
different types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #30 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I'm just using CPP_W_NONE in the patch I'm testing and that seems to work.
Regarding the error message, here's what we'll get:
69650.c:4:55: warning: file "fish" left but not entered
# 9 "fish" 2 /* { dg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #26)
> Also, let's keep in mind the issue David found - "left but not entered"
> seems like a misleading message, something like "unexpectedly reentered"
> seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> Yes, Bernd's patch still works then. I'd prefer this at this stage.
> There doesn't seem to be any CPP_W_* that fits though.
Do you need one? Perhaps -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70370
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase for inout that now will error with the patch (but also ICEd before).
_Complex float foo (_Complex float f)
{
__asm__ ("" : "+r" (__real f));
return f;
}
> ./cc1 -quiet t.c -fdump-tree-all
t.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think that's a fair characterization. The extra copy emitted by the older
compiler gives the allocator more freedom. With coalescing getting more
aggressive, the copy is gone and the allocator's freedom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70370
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So we have !allows_mem here which we can only handle if !is_inout by
emitting a store in the post-queue like
__asm__("" : "=r" tem_1);
__real f = tem_1;
The following works for me (otherwise untested so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The above two patches actually doesn't fix the problem, but I think it covers
the problem by bringing back the old behavior.
So Ilya, could you please check that status of the regression? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70348
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #11 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Mar 23 15:26:43 2016
New Revision: 234430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69042
* params.def (PARAM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Mar 23 15:24:20 2016
New Revision: 234429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69042
* tree-ssa-loop-ivo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70347
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70321
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |7.0
Summary|[6 Regression] ST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70377
Bug ID: 70377
Summary: "unexpected AST" and "confused by earlier errors,
bailing out" from throw in simple constexpr fn
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70376
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38073&action=edit
gcc6-pr70376.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69414
--- Comment #4 from jnorris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jnorris
Date: Wed Mar 23 14:38:55 2016
New Revision: 234428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/69414
* oacc-mem.c (delete_copyou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
>
> --- Comment #26 from Bernd Schmidt ---
> Also, let's keep in mind the issue David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57433
Roman Perepelitsa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roman.perepelitsa at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #26 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Also, let's keep in mind the issue David found - "left but not entered" seems
like a misleading message, something like "unexpectedly reentered" seems to fit
better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |bernds at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38072
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38072&action=edit
tentative patch
This hasn't been tested much, apart from verifying that the testcase compiles.
I also find that I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70376
Bug ID: 70376
Summary: OpenMP taskloop construct fails to instantiate copy
constructor(same as Bug 48869)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 38071
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38071&action=edit
alternate patch
Good question - I attached mine and will check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70370
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
An old message from Richard Henderson seems to mean that __real__ and __imag__
shouldn't be used as lvalues:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-04/msg00521.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess we need to wait on Kirill for the reason why the test has been added.
It could be that it has been assembled badly, and then dg-do assemble is
completely reasonable. Or it could be added for other re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- 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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
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=70052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
[...]
> But, avx-vextractf128-256-5.c has:
> dg-require-effective-target avx512f, so wonder what is the problem.
> Does the order of dg-do vs. dg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 23 13:40:50 2016
New Revision: 234427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-23 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/70251
* ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69773
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70374
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70023
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helloqirun at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70023
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 70374 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Mar 23 13:20:16 2016
New Revision: 234425
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64058
* tree-ssa-coalesce.c (struct c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #22)
> Maybe we can put the error under some new flag though.
Does Bernd's patch still work if we just warn instead of error? I still think
doing this in th
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
