https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:46:05 2017
New Revision: 246437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport "Add missing dg-require-effective-target alloca in gcc testsuite"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:29:06 2017
New Revision: 246436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Require effective target global_constructor for two testcases
2017-03-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:28:53 2017
New Revision: 246435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Require effective target indirect_jump in Wimplicit-fallthrough-34.c
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:28:42 2017
New Revision: 246434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246434&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Require effective target nonlocal_goto in pr79244.c
2017-03-24 Tom de Vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:28:12 2017
New Revision: 246433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing dg-require-effective-target alloca in gcc testsuite
2017-03-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56251
chihin ko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54773
chihin ko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80165
Bug ID: 80165
Summary: Constexpr tuple of variant doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79852
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also pr79840.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:48:20PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> The additional errors are
>
> /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/where_operator_assign_1.f90:82:69:
>
> pv((2_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The patch in comment 2 fixes the failures
FAIL: gfortran.dg/where_operator_assign_2.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/where_operator_assign_3.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 79888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79888
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
--- Comment #5 from Gordon Brown ---
That's great, thanks Jason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57924
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57924
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
1
> Warning: Creating array temporary at (1) [-Warray-temporaries]
>
> Am I correct to understand that it is the expected behavior?
Yes, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80093
--- Comment #2 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
```
#include
int foo (std::mt19937* x)
{
std::uniform_int_distribution k(0, 99);
for (auto i = 0; i < 1'000'000'000; ++i)
{
std::uniform_int_distribution y(0, 99);
volatile auto r =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57924
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The fix proposed by Bernd for PR80160 does not solve the problem. So I am
continuing to work on the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80159
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Either patch proposed by Bernd for PR80160 or my patch on which I am working
for PR80148 will solve the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #4)
> Perhaps this.
>
> Index: lra-assigns.c
> ===
> --- lra-assigns.c (revision 246226)
> +++ l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80161
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Hammond ---
Fair point, but the error is "error: the last argument must be scale 1, 2, 4,
8" and "const int scale = 1" sure seems like it should be interpreted by the
compiler as "1", given "scale" has local scope (the er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80162
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I've got a hack that allows me to evaluate the effect of the last example
from c#5. So let's look at how the number of realized jump threads is affected
by the various tweaks I'm playing with:
VRP1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77339
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
Bug ID: 80164
Summary: ICE in gfc_format_decoder at gcc/fortran/error.c:933
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80163
Bug ID: 80163
Summary: ICE on hopefully valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79423
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80162
Bug ID: 80162
Summary: ICE on invalid code (address of register variable)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this.
Something is wrong with processing insns for reloads. The asm-insn hash 2 the
same operands mem[r263+12]. R263 is spilled for a reload. The mem becomes
invalid and r263 sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80137
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 23 18:23:25 2017
New Revision: 246422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80150 - ICE with overloaded variadic deduction.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Perhaps this.
Index: lra-assigns.c
===
--- lra-assigns.c (revision 246226)
+++ lra-assigns.c (working copy)
@@ -908,7 +908,8 @@ mus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79612
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Would something such as the following make sense (with a proper comment and the
commented lines removed)?
--- ../_clean/libgfortran/runtime/bounds.c 2017-01-01 17:39:08.0
+0100
+++ libgfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> The reason for the tree-affine oddity is that IVO calls
>
> #0 tree_to_aff_combination (expr=,
> type=, comb=0x7fffd310)
>
> that is, tree_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80161
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79255
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Short C testcase that ICEs without the patch:
/* PR bootstrap/79255 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -fno-toplevel-reorder -Wno-attributes" } */
static inline __attribute__((always_inline))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80161
Bug ID: 80161
Summary: const argument hidden from AVX intrinsics due to
OpenMP outlining
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> > But it's better to introduce effective-target keywords for those features,
> > and mark the tests as such. That wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79255
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, what I see is:
#0 add_AT_unsigned (die=0x7fffedd374b0, attr_kind=DW_AT_inline,
unsigned_val=2) at ../../gcc/dwarf2out.c:4150
#1 0x00ea5d65 in gen_subprogram_die (decl=0x7fffee138600,
context_die
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #14)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
The following fixes the reduced test case. Could you please test it on the
full 416.gamess build? I'll regstrap it on x86-64 and ppc64le.
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, that's not it at all. This is much more subtle. This has to do with
candidates that have alternate interpretations (as either a CAND_ADD or a
CAND_MULT). We fix up the candidate that we replace, but no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79772
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
This is the only spot where we don't do an in-situ replacement. Testing a
patch to fix that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 79772, which changed state.
Bug 79772 Summary: [6/7 Regression][CHKP] ICE on invalid code in
chkp_process_stmt (tree-chkp.c:4034)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79772
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79986
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 79772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
> >
> > --- Comment #12 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I finally figured out what is happening.
The parent READ begins with eating any leading spaces. If a non-space character
is found, rather than seek backward (which can't be done with some units) we
unget t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Submitted "[testsuite] Add missing dg-require-effective-target alloca to gcc
testsuite" ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01227.html )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -march=pentium-mmx -m32:
typedef struct { long long a; } a_t;
int *a, b;
a_t *e, c;
long long f;
void fn (int);
void fn2 (void);
int fn3 (a_t);
void fn4 (a_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, sure, that is quite possible. Seems like something that should have popped
up before, but I guess the information gathered from the old cand->stmt must
have been harmless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
>
> --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
> Pretty certain the problem is in this ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Pretty certain the problem is in this chunk:
if (bump == 0)
{
tree lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (c->cand_stmt);
gassign *copy_stmt = gimple_build_assign (lhs, basis_name);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71436
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 23 14:55:48 2017
New Revision: 246419
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246419&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/71436: Restrict *load_multiple pattern ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
>
> --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
> OK, I will have to find an x86 box -- fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80159
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog, ra
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, those dumps are very helpful. I found an x86 box, just need to get set
up now. The SLSR dump is truncated but it still tells me what it was working
on when it died, so should help me out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80137
--- Comment #1 from John Salmon ---
The misbehavior is observable by comparing an rng that is invoked directly with
one that is invoked via generate_canonical.
drdws0134$ cat skippy.cpp
#include
#include
int main()
{
std::mt19937 rng;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 41037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41037&action=edit
slsr dump
probably not too helpful as it crashes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 41036
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41036&action=edit
reassoc2 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78543
--- Comment #18 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 41035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41035&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
This patch does not allow SUBREG's in bswap functions, which confuses the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
I proposed a fix for this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01222.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
>
> --- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80025
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #12)
> That still doesn't seem to address the root cause though? Isn't the problem
> that this reversible mappings code can create cycles and we should avoid
> creatin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I will have to find an x86 box -- fortran cross is too challenging.
Meanwhile, could you please add -fdump-tree-reassoc2 and
-fdump-tree-slsr-details and post the results? Might be able to figure it out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80025
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
That still doesn't seem to address the root cause though? Isn't the problem
that this reversible mappings code can create cycles and we should avoid
creating these in the first place?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80025
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41034
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41034&action=edit
gcc7-pr80025.patch
Untested alternate patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
>
> --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
> Richard, what flags are you using with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Ah, the patches do not fix the testcase because the testcase is _not_ the
> PRE-creates-IV case. It's indeed simply hoisting/PRE at work transforming
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
Bug ID: 80160
Summary: [7 regression] operand has impossible constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80156
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> My bisection shows r245596 as the start of the regression, r245764
> as well as r245768 fails, not passes.
You are right: testing the original code I found the range r245564 (compiles)
r245629 (erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Richard, what flags are you using with the reduced test case? Hoping I can
reproduce this on ppc64le without a cross, but so far no luck.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
Bug 80136 depends on bug 79908, which changed state.
Bug 79908 Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr (gimplify.c:12155) gimplification failed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Mar 23 13:13:44 2017
New Revision: 246418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-03-23 Bill Schmidt
Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Mar 23 13:13:44 2017
New Revision: 246418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-03-23 Bill Schmidt
Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, all. I will commit the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80159
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77563
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77563
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 23 12:50:55 2017
New Revision: 246417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77563 - missing ambiguous conversion error.
* call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80159
Bug ID: 80159
Summary: [7 regression] gcc takes very link time with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
