https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71852
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160712 (experimental) [trunk revision 238270] (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-07-12, at 12:36 PM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
>> don't have any ia64 hardware and I also don't have an 11.31 box. So,
>> there's a support issue for ia64 and 11.31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
--- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Jul 12 22:06:51 2016
New Revision: 238268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/68961
* config/i386/sse.md (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71224
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69028
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68581
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65289
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71841
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to johan.leroy from comment #3)
> file compiles without a problem
Which files? You still haven't provide a complete testcase.
What is the exact code you are trying to compile?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71853
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71853
Bug ID: 71853
Summary: [6/7 regression] ICE on an ill-formed case statement
in c_do_switch_warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71852
Bug ID: 71852
Summary: add warning for conditions that can never be true
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Latest patch posted here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-07/msg00046.html
Still testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71814
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #20 from Victor Mataré ---
(In reply to Victor Mataré from comment #19)
> > I'm not suggesting anything radical or novel, just the standard way to use
> > iostreams.
> [...]
> Maybe anyone with more insight into the standardization pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #19 from Victor Mataré ---
> I'm not suggesting anything radical or novel, just the standard way to use
> iostreams.
I'd call that "the legacy way" or the "C-like pattern". Call it "predominant"
or "established" if you wish.
But The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71805
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71805
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jul 12 18:12:11 2016
New Revision: 238258
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238258&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
[gcc]
2016-07-12 Michael Meissner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
--- Comment #8 from vsz.bugzilla at emailuser dot net ---
And the link command output:
```
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=C:/msys64/mingw32/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-w64-mingw32/5.4.0/lto-wrapper.exe
Target: i686-w64-mingw32
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
--- Comment #7 from vsz.bugzilla at emailuser dot net ---
Created attachment 38883
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38883&action=edit
Test case #1
Attached a test case that includes all referred sources, generated .o binaries,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71805
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jul 12 17:42:04 2016
New Revision: 238256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238256&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-12 Michael Meissner
PR target/71805
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71841
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> I cannot confirm this:
>
> http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/Y6tlw5LQ71o1o6ei
Sorry, this should be:
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/3L5qgWb4x0gJw6FV
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71841
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to johan.leroy from comment #3)
> clang version I've used:
>
> $ clang --version
> clang version 3.8.0 (branches/release_38)
> Target: x86_64-pc-windows-msvc
> Thread model: posix
> InstalledDir:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24574
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Makes sense, I don't know why I didn't add divisions in the original patch.
*_MOD_EXPR, shifts and rotates should work as well with 0 on the left, max with
INT_MAX, etc, I was quite minimalist there.
Of course
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Boris Kolpackov from comment #17)
> > if (is >> x >> y >> z)
>
> And what should happen in the else part of such statements?
>
> if (is >> x >> y >> z)
> ...
> else
> throw something();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62125
--- Comment #9 from mrestelli ---
Here is a test; should compile and run without errors.
module m
implicit none
type, abstract :: t1
logical :: l
end type t1
type, extends(t1), abstract :: t2
integer :: i
end type t2
type, extends(t2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
Bug ID: 71851
Summary: Get more time granularity at preprocessing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to vsz.bugzilla from comment #5)
> You may find a self-contained example under the GitHub link included in the
> original report. Direct link:
Unfortunately I do not have a MYSY2 installation, or ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #16 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #15)
> Steve Ellcey used to support HP-UX/IA64 but he moved on to MIPS. Don't
> know Jim Wilson's status.
I emailed them both. Maybe they can point me to a n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #17 from Boris Kolpackov ---
> if (is >> x >> y >> z)
And what should happen in the else part of such statements?
if (is >> x >> y >> z)
...
else
throw something();
Also note that if the 'is >> x' call in the above chain fails,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71850
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to christian wilmes from comment #2)
> Which component performs the CreateProcess call then?
I am saying there is code in gcc.c that handles the linking side of things but
not calling of cc1.
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71850
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71850
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The driver does handle the case where @file is used for linking and passes a
temp @file to the linker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71850
--- Comment #2 from christian wilmes
---
Which component performs the CreateProcess call then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
To elaborate on the use case: my immediate need for it is to detect at compile
time possible buffer overflow in calls to sprintf (the -Wformat-length patch)
without _FORTIFY_SOURCE that not all projects use an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I meant comment #0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71850
Bug ID: 71850
Summary: CreateProcess argumend lpCommandLine exceeds limit 32k
limit
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, I understand and agree with that. What I envision is handling just the
basic cases like the ones in comment #2 (and similar) that don't involve the
objsz machinery. My -Wformat-length patch (bug 49905)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57853
--- Comment #16 from this is me ---
Andrew Pinski:
Will you delete this Bug 57853 web page for me?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57853
I can't hired!
Howard
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57853
>
> Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jul 12 15:13:47 2016
New Revision: 238251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-07-06 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71763
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jul 12 15:13:47 2016
New Revision: 238251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-07-06 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jul 12 15:10:08 2016
New Revision: 238250
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-07-06 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71763
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Jul 12 15:10:08 2016
New Revision: 238250
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-07-06 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71700
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71700
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Jul 12 15:00:28 2016
New Revision: 238248
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238248&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[expr.c] PR middle-end/71700: zero-extend sub-word value w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jul 12 14:54:52 2016
New Revision: 238247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634
* ira-build.c (mark_loops_for_remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One of the reasons is that -O0 should mean short compile time. If you schedule
the objsz pass at -O0, you might slow down the compilation, especially on
larger functions.
The glibc headers won't use it at -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #15 from John David Anglin ---
Steve Ellcey used to support HP-UX/IA64 but he moved on to MIPS. Don't
know Jim Wilson's status.
I don't have any ia64 hardware and I also don't have an 11.31 box. So,
there's a support issue for ia64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||33315
Summary|Optimization o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485
--- Comment #60 from Richard Biener ---
With code hoisting we now end up with the following for the testcase in
comment#6. Over-the-weekend testing on bytemark (nbench?) didn't show
any effect though. Thus requires re-evaluation.
NumSift (long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #14 from The Written Word
---
We backported this patch to gcc-4.7.4 which we used to bootstrap gcc-5.4.0 on
HP-UX/IA. We seem to get farther than before in building gcc-5.4.0 though the
build still fails for what appears are reasons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24568
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
:
milliDiff_6 = -milliDiff_5(D);
minutesDiff_15 = milliDiff_6 / 6;
minutesDiff_8 = -minutesDiff_15;
so we still fail to notice that this is equal to
minutesDiff_3 = milliDiff_5(D) / 6;
w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
The Written Word changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla-gcc@thewrittenword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29144
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
b and d are fixed on trunk (GCC 7) but we're just lucky with the association.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71849
Bug ID: 71849
Summary: bitfield placement of overly aligned type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71848
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71848
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 38880
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38880&action=edit
insert4_neg.ii pre-processed source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71848
Bug ID: 71848
Summary: [7 Regression] libstdc++ testsuite error on AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24001
Bug 24001 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33828
Bug 33828 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Bug 70159 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21676
Bug 21676 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11832
Bug 11832 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315
Bug 33315 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67879
Bug 67879 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24568
Bug 24568 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29144
Bug 29144 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485
Bug 21485 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 12 13:32:04 2016
New Revision: 238242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-12 Steven Bosscher
Richard Biener
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 12 13:32:04 2016
New Revision: 238242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-12 Steven Bosscher
Richard Biener
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62125
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I confirm that the patch in comment 5 allows the test to be compiled without
regression.
A test case showing that the code executes as expected is needed to avoid to
replace reject-valid with wrong-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71839
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Maybe I should ask the OpenCoarrays people.
Indeed!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71783
--- Comment #13 from Toon Moene ---
On 07/11/2016 10:26 PM, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71783
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, npl at chello dot at wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
>
> --- Comment #25 from npl at chello dot at ---
> Yes, that works fine. I just meant to sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
--- Comment #25 from npl at chello dot at ---
Yes, that works fine. I just meant to say it needs more work than casting to a
type with less alignment, and unless explicitly marked with this pragma you can
expect a compiler to access like the (dedu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to npl from comment #22)
>
> Its also generally quite hard to force the compiler to do less-aligned
> accesses, and I haven`t seen this "solution" anywhere. (Probably because it
> doesn`t work on any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71842
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60621
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Using the code in comment 6, with 4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.1.0 and recent 7.0 trunk:
textdata bss dec hex filename
5606 696 40634218c6 493.eb
4943 696 405679
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Boris Kolpackov from comment #15)
> I am interested to hear what is your recommendation to do instead, call
> good()
> after every IO operation?
The normal way that iostreams are designed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58265
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58265
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jul 12 10:56:11 2016
New Revision: 238241
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Implement N4258 noexcept for std::basic_string.
Backport from m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71839
--- Comment #5 from Anton Shterenlikht ---
The puzzling thing is that symbol _gfortran_caf_stop_str
is in the OpenCoarrays library:
$ nm ~/OpenCoarrays-1.6.0/opencoarrays-build/lib/libcaf_mpi.a | grep
_gfortran_caf_stop_str
4870 T _g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71847
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71752
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71795
Vladimir Fuka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, npl at chello dot at wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417
>
> --- Comment #22 from npl at chello dot at ---
> > > 0014 :
> > > 14: e3a03000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71716
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71716
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 12 08:56:14 2016
New Revision: 238238
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238238&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-12 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/68961
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71841
--- Comment #3 from johan.leroy at openehs dot co.uk ---
clang version I've used:
$ clang --version
clang version 3.8.0 (branches/release_38)
Target: x86_64-pc-windows-msvc
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: C:\LLVM\bin
file compiles without a pr
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
