https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78410
Alec Ari changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Another testcase
markus@x4 /tmp % cat test2.i
struct S {
_Bool bo;
};
int a, b, c, d;
void fn1() {
do
do
do {
struct S *e = (struct S *)1;
do
b = a / (e->bo ? 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
Bug ID: 78413
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in single_pred_edge, at
basic-block.h:361
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72747
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npmccallum at redhat dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78409
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
We need a testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78410
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I've already built binutils and newlib
You are building gcc against newlib; that is broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78002
hs.naveen2u at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hs.naveen2u at gmail dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> > You may notice I was invoking the wrong executable in what I posted in
> > comment #3. I did rerun the correct one several times and tried it with
> > -mavx -mp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78296
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78365
--- Comment #6 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> IPA has to deal with argument mismatches (I think I've said this elsewhere).
As I understand, this is along what you found earlier but a different iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38219
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38219
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Nov 17 23:54:46 2016
New Revision: 242576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/38219
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp47.c: Do not run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47192
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47192
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Nov 17 23:39:08 2016
New Revision: 242575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/47192
* config/m68k/m68k.c (m68k_expand_epilogue)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
And one more thing.
Comparing the timing you get for the version with the target_clone
and a version using just -mavx added to the relevant line in the
Makefile, do you see a difference?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
> You may notice I was invoking the wrong executable in what I posted in
> comment #3. I did rerun the correct one several times and tried it with
> -mavx -mprefer-avx128. I get the same poor results regardl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #19)
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:43:40AM +, kevin.b.beard at nasa dot gov
> wrote:
> > Many thanks to Jerry DeLisle [jvdeli...@charter.net]; he made us realize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47192
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> > I did apply your second patch:
> >
> > I do not get any improvement and results are diminished from current trunk,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78193
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 17 22:40:28 2016
New Revision: 242573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242573&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78193 - inherited ctor regressions on sparc32.
* c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78193
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68377
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68377
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 17 22:27:56 2016
New Revision: 242571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68377 - parenthesized expr in fold-expression
* pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78193
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20641
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20641
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55080
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78369
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55080
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Nov 17 21:44:05 2016
New Revision: 242565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-11-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/55080
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78124
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78101
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Nov 17 21:42:13 2016
New Revision: 242564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-11-17 Michael Meissner
PR target/78101
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78124
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 17 21:41:09 2016
New Revision: 242563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78124 - list-initialization and inherited ctor
* n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78369
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 17 21:40:48 2016
New Revision: 242562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78369 - {} as default argument
* call.c (build_spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68377
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 17 21:40:41 2016
New Revision: 242561
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242561&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68377 - parenthesized expr in fold-expression
* pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78412
Bug ID: 78412
Summary: attribute malloc ineffective
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I can't reproduce this with recent GCC 6 branch. Possibly a duplicate of
bug 72747?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
I don't think this is related to the loop, a = b = (struct buf) {} loses the
assignment to b even if you put it alone on its line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Aggressive optimization of |C loop initial declarations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77673
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Got a patch, testing it now.
- movl$0, %esi
- movq%rax, %rdi
- callmemset
leaq-131056(%rbp), %rax
leaq-65536(%rbp), %rcx
movl$65520, %edx
@@ -86,5 +81,5 @@
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size main, .-main
- .ident "GCC: (GNU) 7.0.0 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78369
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78411
Bug ID: 78411
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr45685.c scan-assembler-times
cmov 6
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 17 20:30:41 2016
New Revision: 242560
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242560&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR77933: stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
--- Comment #3 from Nathaniel McCallum ---
Created attachment 40077
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40077&action=edit
output assembly from the test case
This assembly was produced with: gcc -S test.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
--- Comment #2 from Nathaniel McCallum ---
Created attachment 40076
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40076&action=edit
simple test case
Compile with: gcc -o test test.c
This is a simple echo server. It *should* echo whatever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78410
Bug ID: 78410
Summary: gen-fac.c: undefined references
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> I did apply your second patch:
>
> I do not get any improvement and results are diminished from current trunk,
> so I am missing something. This is same machine I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 17 20:12:13 2016
New Revision: 242559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR77933: stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Do you think you could produce a smaller, stand-alone testcase that reproduces
the issue? Or at least attach the preprocessed sources to the report?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69270
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78409
Bug ID: 78409
Summary: Segfault in classify_object_over_fdes when throwing
and exception
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||baker at usgs dot gov
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53833
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
Bug ID: 78408
Summary: Aggressive optimization of zeroing results in
incorrect behavior
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77600
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77599
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #6 from Chris ---
> Which one do you mean exactly? Shouldn't they all use the user-defined
> assignment function?
Yes, that's right--they all should. Sorry, I didn't have the code up in front
of me when I wrote that so I was a bit i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here are some measurements with the AVX-enabling patch.
They were done on an AVX machine, namely gcc75 from the compile farm.
This was done with the command line
gfortran -static-libgfortran -finline-matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 40074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40074&action=edit
Test program for benchmarks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chris from comment #4)
> I tried compiling (my original example) on a different box, this one with
> gfortran 6.2.0 obtained from the ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA. I got
>
> [..]
> gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78407
Bug ID: 78407
Summary: LTO breaks separate overriding of symbol aliases
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt ---
With the fix I couldn't reproduce the error message in four attempts, but
genattrtab still hangs. Maybe this is bad luck, but maybe the error is gone.
Running a regression test without bootstrapping on s390
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78406
--- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Artem, please don't open a new bug for every phoronix benchmark where gcc
> appears to be slower than clang.
>
> First of all there are existing bug r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78201
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 17 17:09:13 2016
New Revision: 242555
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242555&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78201
* varasm.c (default_use_anchors_for_sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78406
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
I'm doing this on s390x right now. Just takes some more time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78406
Bug ID: 78406
Summary: Crafty v23.4 is 20% slower under GCC 6.2 than under
Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78405
Bug ID: 78405
Summary: OpenSSL v1.0.1g RSA 4096 test is 20% slower under GCC
6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #12 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
> That didn't fix the ia64 bootstrap failure.
Would have been too easy I guess :-) Okay, can you try to find a testcase
that regressed by not bootstrapping but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #4 from Chris ---
I tried compiling (my original example) on a different box, this one with
gfortran 6.2.0 obtained from the ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA. I got
Driving: gfortran-6 -v minimal.f90 -l gfortran -l m -shared-libgcc
Using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78404
Bug ID: 78404
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Sparse Matrix Multiply test is 20% slower
under GCC 6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
--- Comment #6 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had a look at this and after some digging I found the bug is not due to LTO,
but rather with "local" functions. If you make bar static you will end up with
the same faulty behavior.
After some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78403
Bug ID: 78403
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation test is
30% slower under GCC 6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78402
Bug ID: 78402
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Dense LU Matrix Factorization test runs
more than 2 times slower under GCC 6.2 than under
Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78401
Bug ID: 78401
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Composite test runs 1,5 times slower
under GCC 6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
That didn't fix the ia64 bootstrap failure.
-prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-242552-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nographite-powerpc
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161117 (experimental) (GCC)
The compiler was configured with --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df,extra ; maybe df
checking is needed to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78399
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Related to PR 50384.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #9)
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:03:03PM +, matz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I'm just bootstrapping s390x with the fix; would you like me to
> run a regression te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78355
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78355
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 17 16:16:38 2016
New Revision: 242554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78355
* doc/tm.texi.in (SLOW_UNALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78399
--- Comment #1 from Luca Stoppa ---
Created attachment 40071
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40071&action=edit
Optimal code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46639
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Missing |[5/6 Regression] Missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78399
Bug ID: 78399
Summary: g++ generates sub-optimal assembler code when structs
aren't explicitly aligned.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt ---
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:03:03PM +, matz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
>
> --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
> The aarch64 fail is fixed by the below
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78324
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Nov 17 15:55:26 2016
New Revision: 242552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix locations within raw strings
Whilst investigating PR preprocessor/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61399
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Somewhat reduced test case (without all the abstract stuff):
module types_mod
implicit none
type, public :: t1
integer :: a
contains
procedure :: get_t2
end type
type, public :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
-std=gnuXX affects IEEE 754 conformance, but that is not mentioned in the
documentation, only in source code comments (c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
The aarch64 fail is fixed by the below patch. It will take a while for me
to try this on s390, so if somebody beats me to test this I won't complain.
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index 0210685.
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
