https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> With these lines added to my configure line I have been able to bootstrap
> revision r247792. However this addition was not necessary before and I don't
> think it is the end user responsibility to do the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80698
Bug ID: 80698
Summary: new unreachable code implementation possible?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79135
Brian 'geeknik' Carpenter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79136
Brian 'geeknik' Carpenter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79038
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue May 9 23:49:37 2017
New Revision: 247820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-05-09 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79203
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue May 9 23:49:37 2017
New Revision: 247820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-05-09 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79202
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue May 9 23:49:37 2017
New Revision: 247820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-05-09 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79136
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Be sure to include which version of the draco code to check out; master?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59000
wgh at beyondunreal dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wgh at beyondunreal dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79135
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79136
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80697
Bug ID: 80697
Summary: On PowerPC, the spec 2006 benchmark milc had a 5.6%
regression under GCC 7.1 compared to GCC 6.3.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68163
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue May 9 21:25:23 2017
New Revision: 247819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-05-09 Michael Meissner
PR target/68163
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 79311, which changed state.
Bug 79311 Summary: [OOP] ICE in generate_finalization_wrapper, at
fortran/class.c:1992
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79311
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79311
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79311
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue May 9 20:55:38 2017
New Revision: 247818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Janus Weil
PR fortran/79311
* res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79136
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Are you sure this is not just a bug in Draco's use of the std::lib?
I'll try checking out the code and building it with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG defined, and
see if I can reproduce the crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 9 20:37:51 2017
New Revision: 247814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70979 - literal class and closure types
* class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 9 20:37:44 2017
New Revision: 247813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247813&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66297, DR 1684 - literal class and constexpr member fns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Freddie Chopin from comment #5)
> Any chance for merging the fix for GCC 7? It would be a pity to wait for a
> fixed release for another year...
I'll put it in 7.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80670
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35443
Bug 35443 depends on bug 35441, which changed state.
Bug 35441 Summary: pretty-printer cannot handle some expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35442
Bug 35442 depends on bug 35441, which changed state.
Bug 35441 Summary: pretty-printer cannot handle some expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35742
Bug 35742 depends on bug 35441, which changed state.
Bug 35441 Summary: pretty-printer cannot handle some expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
--- Comment #11 from Volker Reichelt ---
Author: reichelt
Date: Tue May 9 19:09:22 2017
New Revision: 247810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/35441
* c-pretty-print.c (c_pretty_printer::exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
--- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that compiling with -fno-tree-slp-vectorize results in this much better
code:
_IO_new_file_overflow:
ld 9,8(3)
ld 10,64(3)
cmpld 7,9,10
beq 7,.L2
ld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.2 |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
Bug ID: 80696
Summary: [8 Regression] New Failures to do with matmul
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
Bug ID: 80695
Summary: gratuitous use of stxvx to store multiple pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80643
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue May 9 17:32:59 2017
New Revision: 247808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR testsuite/80643
* c-c++-commo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80643
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Removing the fold() call doesn't regress anything, btw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80386
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Well, I hope we're not. Very much related: PR80386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80186
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 9 16:56:34 2017
New Revision: 247807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/80186
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But we ideally shouldn't be folding anything until we actually c_fully_fold or
cp_fold recursively, starting with the leafs. Most of the folders heavily rely
on that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
I.e. I'm worried we could trigger the endless recursion also if we happen to
call fold() on that expression via a different path than from save_expr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, it helps with this particular testcase (and I agree we want to get rid of
that fold() call in save_expr -- I'll take care of it), but I wonder if this
issue is something separate: starting with r230506
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To expand on that, I think we want to drop that call from there and instead be
able to simplify somehow a SAVE_EXPR if after c_fully_fold or cp_fold it
becomes simple enough not to require any saving.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Would dropping the fold call from save_expr fix this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80691
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Standalone testcase that compiles as C++11 or C++14, fails as C++17:
struct true_type { static constexpr bool value = true; };
struct false_type { static constexpr bool value = false; };
template using voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80280
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue May 9 15:55:05 2017
New Revision: 247804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247804&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR translation/80280
* config/sol2-c.c (cm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> You should add:
>
> --with-stage1-ldflags=-static-libstdc++
> --with-boot-ldflags=-static-libstdc++
>
> to your configure line.
With these lines added to my configure line I have been able to boot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80280
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue May 9 15:39:54 2017
New Revision: 247801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR translation/80280
* config/i386/msforma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80668
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Fritz Reese -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80691
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77709
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77709
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80691
--- Comment #1 from Michał Dominiak ---
This bug makes it seem (in SFINAE contexts) that std::string is constructible
from double with an initializer-list constructor, without narrowing:
#include
#include
using std::void_t;
template
struct i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
Bug ID: 80694
Summary: [8 regression] test cases gcc.dg/vect/vect-44.c and
vect-50.c fail starting with r247780
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
--- Comment #21 from Martin Sebor ---
The rtl.c error was discussed in the context of some other bug having to do
with profiledbootstrap failure (I can't find the bug now). If I recall, it's
due to the same signed <-> unsigned conversion issue a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
--- Comment #6 from Venkataramanan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> What does ICC do if you use int and/or short fields in st1? Does it perform
> struct copying member-wise?
It copies member wise. -O2 /-O2 -march=core-avx2
Fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70167
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 9 13:48:58 2017
New Revision: 247793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247793&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70167 - array prvalue treated as lvalue
* cp-tree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 May 2017, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The following patch fixes the failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The following patch fixes the failures:
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 2016-09-19
18:03:55.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f902017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #14 from Tristan Gingold ---
On 09/05/2017 15:14, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
>
> --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Did you try to get gnat1 built without -stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Did you try to get gnat1 built without -static-libgcc ?
How am I supposed to do that? I have used the same clean configure
../p_work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc8p-247298p1
--enable-languages=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80285
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #12 from Tristan Gingold ---
On 09/05/2017 14:43, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
>
> --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Any chance to see this PR fixed soon?
Did yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Better testcase:
int
foo (int i)
{
return ((i * (unsigned long long) (-0 + 1UL)) * 2) % 1;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35560
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Any chance to see this PR fixed soon?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80275
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80478
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 9 12:27:24 2017
New Revision: 247790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80539
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 9 12:27:24 2017
New Revision: 247790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 9 12:27:24 2017
New Revision: 247790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80275
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 9 12:27:24 2017
New Revision: 247790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 9 12:27:24 2017
New Revision: 247790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80362
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 9 12:27:24 2017
New Revision: 247790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80262
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 9 12:27:24 2017
New Revision: 247790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80678
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 9 12:24:53 2017
New Revision: 247789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/80678
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 9 12:24:53 2017
New Revision: 247789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/80678
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71510
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 9 12:24:53 2017
New Revision: 247789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/80678
2016-06-14 Richard Biener
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.2 |5.5
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80682
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Initial patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00632.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Note that using unaligned 128bit moves might involve an even larger STLF
penalty than if the loads/stores were aligned due to the fact they might cross
a cache-line boundary and how store queues usually are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
What does ICC do if you use int and/or short fields in st1? Does it perform
struct copying member-wise?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79283
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80525
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80525
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 9 11:21:14 2017
New Revision: 247786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/80525
* c-warn.c (unwrap_c_maybe_const): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80693
Bug ID: 80693
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -O
-fno-tree-coalesce-vars
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80690
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80682
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80690
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Our std::is_function is not compatible with Clang:
struct true_type { static constexpr bool value = true; };
struct false_type { static constexpr bool value = false; };
template
struct is_function
: p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80692
Bug ID: 80692
Summary: _Decimal64 -0 != 0 unless optimization is turned off
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80691
Bug ID: 80691
Summary: Narrowing conversion in {} allowed in a SFINAE context
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
Rohit changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rohitarulraj at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80690
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo