http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58868
octoploid at yandex dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||octoploid at yandex dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58868
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #12 from Kito Cheng ---
> The question sounds self-contradictory... Anyway, rather than inventing a
> new
> hook for each problem, let's try to formulate it in terms of existing hooks.
TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN hook is add in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58900
--- Comment #3 from nick87720z at gmail dot com ---
Looks like i just did not get something from gcc info book. After short search
for topics about gcc for possible describing of such error i found one
(russian), explicating it by feature to specif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58900
nick87720z at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN hook is add in r190846
> and x86 used it in r190847.
Sure, but you cannot use an x86 hook to reject something for non-x86 arches...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58935
Bug ID: 58935
Summary: cannot install `libcilkrts.la' to a directory not
ending in
/usr/local/gcc_current/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gn
u/
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58925
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimhen at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58935
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58936
Bug ID: 58936
Summary: wrong Makefile generated when gmp/mpfr/mpc installed
in custom folder
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58936
--- Comment #2 from Liu Jian ---
correction:
Makefile I corrected should be host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc/Makefile
Correction:
GMPLIBS = -lmpc -lmpfr -lgmp
==>
GMPLIBS = $HOME/lib/libmpc.a $HOME/lib/libmpfr.a $HOME/lib/libgmp.a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58936
--- Comment #1 from Liu Jian ---
correction:
Makefile I corrected should be host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc/Makefile
Correction:
GMPLIBS = -lmpc -lmpfr -lgmp
==>
GMPLIBS = $HOME/lib/libmpc.a $HOME/lib/libmpfr.a $HOME/lib/libgmp.a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58936
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Liu Jian from comment #0)
> I configured gcc using:
> ./configure --prefix=$HOME --with-gmp=$HOME --with-mpfr=$HOME
> --with-mpc=$HOME
> When I am compiling gcc 4.8.2, I got error:
Configurin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 31116
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31116&action=edit
reduced testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58901
--- Comment #3 from Martin Husemann ---
Matt asked for the instruction involved - I think it is this:
(insn 245 244 246 51 (set (mem:HI (reg/v/f:SI 1 %r1 [orig:67 sup ] [67]) [2
*sup_104+0 S2 A16])
(plus:HI (subreg:HI (mem/u/c:SI (plus:SI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58581
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 31 10:11:49 2013
New Revision: 204249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-30 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58581
* call.c (b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58581
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58932
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58937
Bug ID: 58937
Summary: Preloaded libasan segfaults on unsanitized executables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56853
g changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toedt at embl dot de
--- Comment #3 from g ---
Creat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56853
--- Comment #4 from g ---
cpu is an Intel Core 2 Duo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|cris-axis-elf |cris-axis-elf,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Bug ID: 58938
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] std::exception_ptr is missing
on architectures with incomplete atomic int support
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not really sure what we can do here. You need to use -pthread.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose we could turn all timed waiting functions into sleeps, and wait()
into an infinite loop, when libpthread is not linked in, but I'd prefer not to
add that complexity.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58932
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58937
--- Comment #1 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 31118
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31118&action=edit
Draft patch
Here is a draft patch implementing my proposal.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|cris-axis-elf, |cris-axis-elf,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58937
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why don't you add __attribute__((constructor)) to __asan_init instead?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51001
Yufeng Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58932
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 31 12:09:17 2013
New Revision: 204250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-31 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58932
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58466
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 31 12:09:17 2013
New Revision: 204250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-31 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58932
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
--- Comment #10 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Thu Oct 31 12:10:01 2013
New Revision: 204251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-31 Richard Sandiford
Yury Gribov
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58932
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 31 12:10:20 2013
New Revision: 204252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-31 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58932
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58466
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 31 12:10:20 2013
New Revision: 204252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-31 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58932
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58932
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58937
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31118|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58939
Bug ID: 58939
Summary: Cannot Cross-Build Android Native GCC 4.8 libcpp build
conversion errors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 31121
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31121&action=edit
arm-none-eabi reduced testcase
./cc1 -O2 -g -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp reduced.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So why is this a regression? Does ARM define _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 but
ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE=1 ? That seems like a bug in those definitions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58701
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
However, I think this is invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58931
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli ---
A candidate patch was sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02676.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Rafał Rawicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafal at rawicki dot org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #4 from Rafał Rawicki ---
(In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #3)
> This is a regression, because a more specific _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was
> defined (but is no longer available) and now there is defined
> ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10474
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 31 13:39:26 2013
New Revision: 204254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-31 Martin Jambor
PR rtl-optimization/58934
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 31 13:39:26 2013
New Revision: 204254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-31 Martin Jambor
PR rtl-optimization/58934
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58940
Bug ID: 58940
Summary: [C++11] Bogus "error: use of deleted function ..."
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|cris-axis-elf, |cris-axis-elf,
|sparc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58941
Bug ID: 58941
Summary: MIPS: value modification on zero-length array
optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rafal at rawicki dot org |amacleod at redhat dot
com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #3)
> This is a regression, because a more specific _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was
> defined (but is no longer available) and now there is defined
> ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58162
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 31 14:41:55 2013
New Revision: 204263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58162
* parser.c (cp_parser_late_parse_one_default_arg): Set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58901
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann ---
I got a quick lesson in addressing modes for vax ;-)
It seems the mode = HImode passed to the upper functions in the call stack is
the problem - with HImode we can only use index operands with a factor of 2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58162, which changed state.
Bug 58162 Summary: [C++11] bogus error: use of deleted function 'constexpr
A::A(const A&)'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58162
What|Removed |Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58162
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #3)
> > This is a regression, because a more specific _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was
> > defined (but is no longer avail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58942
Bug ID: 58942
Summary: cilkplus internal compiler error: tree check
__sec_reduce_max_ind
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
with: ../configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-4.9 --enable-languages='c
c++ fortran'
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131031 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-O2' '-ftree-vectorize' '-fopenmp' '-std=c99'
'-funroll-loops' &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58834
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Marc, can you prepare a patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58925
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58943
Bug ID: 58943
Summary: wrong calculation of indirect structure member
arithmetic via function call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: crit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
Sharad Singhai changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #3 from Johan Lundberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> I suppose we could turn all timed waiting functions into sleeps, and wait()
> into an infinite loop, when libpthread is not linked in, but I'd prefer not
> to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think -pthread sets _REENTRANT for all targets, although it might do
for all those where we actually support std::condition_variable.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40196
Sean Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quantheory at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also, some people compile without -pthread then link with -lpthread manually.
We could say that's technically unsupported, but currently it works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58162
--- Comment #4 from James Dennett ---
Thanks, Jason.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56037
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #14 from Max TenEyck Woodbury ---
Created attachment 31125
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31125&action=edit
Patch to postpone __LINE__ evaluation to the end of a # line directive.
Patch includes changes to 2 sourc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
Bug ID: 58944
Summary: [4.9 Regression] bogus -Wunused-macros warnings when
compiling Libreoffice
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
octoploid at yandex dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58945
Bug ID: 58945
Summary: Improve atomic_compare_and_swap*_doubleword pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58945
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58946
Bug ID: 58946
Summary: [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in
operator[], at vec.h:722
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58943
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58947
Bug ID: 58947
Summary: [OOP] ICE on select type with non-polymorphic
selector
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58948
Bug ID: 58948
Summary: c++0x support for enums in namespaces
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58946
octoploid at yandex dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58946
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to octoploid from comment #1)
> Started with r204194.
Yes I expected failures to happen in reassoc due it not being well tested
before and now my patch is forcing the path inside reassoc being a lot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58949
Bug ID: 58949
Summary: libcilkrts will not bootstrap on x86_64 without
libstdc++.i686 32 bit libraries installed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58925
--- Comment #4 from octoploid at yandex dot com ---
The following patch fixes the issue for me:
diff --git a/libcilkrts/Makefile.am b/libcilkrts/Makefile.am
index f332cfb13de6..40a19787fda7 100644
--- a/libcilkrts/Makefile.am
+++ b/libcilkrts/Make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58946
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58925
--- Comment #5 from Balaji V. Iyer ---
Hi,
I just submitted a patch to the gcc-patches mailing list. Can you try
that out?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:02 PM, octoploid at yandex dot com <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Bug ID: 58950
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Missing "statement has no effect"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58925
--- Comment #6 from octoploid at yandex dot com ---
(In reply to Balaji V. Iyer from comment #5)
> Hi,
>I just submitted a patch to the gcc-patches mailing list. Can you try
> that out?
Our mails just crossed and I think your patch is fine.
Wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58925
--- Comment #7 from bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bviyer
Date: Thu Oct 31 23:55:21 2013
New Revision: 204280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for PR other/58925
+2013-10-31 Balaji V. Iyer
+
+ P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58951
Bug ID: 58951
Summary: [4.9 regression] cilk build fails due to use of -ldl
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58951
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48326
--- Comment #5 from michael at talamasca dot ocis.net ---
Do I have to file a separate bug report in order to fix the problem that
current GCC releases can't be expected to bootstrap up if the starting compiler
is GCC 4.7.0 (among several other pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Fixed as far as I'm concerned.
Martin, you're assigned so I'll let you close it if you please.
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
