http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
>
> --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > ... which implies that the GCC testsu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59748
Bug ID: 59748
Summary: ptrace isn't instrumented on at least
arm-linux-gnueabihf and powerpc-linux.gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59715
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 10 08:37:07 2014
New Revision: 206511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59715
* tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59749
Bug ID: 59749
Summary: unused warning not emited for unused static struct
unles -save-temps is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59749
--- Comment #1 from Martin Husemann ---
Created attachment 31794
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31794&action=edit
unused_test.i file from -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jan 10 09:33:24 2014
New Revision: 206516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58252
PR ipa/59226
* ipa-devirt.c record_target_from_bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.7.3, 4.9.0|4.3.6, 4.4.7
Summary|[4.8 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jan 10 09:33:24 2014
New Revision: 206516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58252
PR ipa/59226
* ipa-devirt.c record_target_from_bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59750
Bug ID: 59750
Summary: stack protector does not catch 1 byte overwrite of
char[10] array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Fix for PR58252 and PR59226 fixed first two problems contributing to the ICE on
the testcase. The last remaining problem is that our type inheritance graph is
incomplete, it misses the class C.
The reason is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59431
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I thought so myself when I saw the patch and fired off an
i386-pc-solaris2.10 bootstrap. Unfortunately, the failures remain.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59751
Bug ID: 59751
Summary: Hash tables don't use allocator_traits
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #29 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> That optimization seems invalid. There is a explicit template instantiation
> definition, so it is valid for other dsos to have an undefined reference.
Can I see the cgraph dump of the unreduced source fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59752
Bug ID: 59752
Summary: Stack overflow on simple testcase
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59751
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #30 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #29)
> >
> > That optimization seems invalid. There is a explicit template instantiation
> > definition, so it is valid for other dsos to have an undefined referen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I think the problem is in setting the value of e. With -O in .gimple we have:
e.2 = e;
e.3 = e.2;
e.4 = e.3 + -1;
e = e.4;
while with -O2:
e.2 = e;
e.3 = e.2;
e.4 = (unsigned sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
Bug ID: 59753
Summary: Missing -Woverflow warning with signed constant
conversion between T_MAX+1 and UT_MAX
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #31 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the visibility is:
_ZN4llvm21SymbolTableListTraitsINS_10BasicBlockENS_8FunctionEE21transferNodesFromListERNS_12ilist_traitsIS1_EENS_14ilist_iteratorIS1_EES8_/3295
(transferNodesFromList) @0x7fd527d7ee18
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #32 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #31)
> OK, the visibility is:
> _ZN4llvm21SymbolTableListTraitsINS_10BasicBlockENS_8FunctionEE21transferNodes
> FromListERNS_12ilist_traitsIS1_EENS_14ilist_iterator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59750
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
Component|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.4
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I think the problem is in setting the value of e. With -O in .gimple we
> have:
> e.2 = e;
> e.3 = e.2;
> e.4 = e.3 + -1;
> e = e.4;
> while w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59745
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, before ree we have:
(insn 13 12 14 4 (set (reg:HI 0 ax [orig:88 D.1782 ] [88])
(mem/c:HI (symbol_ref:DI ("e") ) [3 e+0 S2
A16])) pr59747.c:18 91 {*movhi_internal}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59754
Bug ID: 59754
Summary: [ree.c] Incorrect merge while working with vector
registers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59754
--- Comment #1 from Yukhin Kirill ---
> made bunch of AVX-512F tests failing (at runtime):
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vpmovsxdq-2.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vpmovsxwd-2.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vpmovzxd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59755
Bug ID: 59755
Summary: BUG Increment Operator with Accessing Arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59755
Arjun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||octo.nebula at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #24 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #23)
> If __STDC_IEC_559__ is unset or does not have the value 1, setting
> STDC FENV_ACCESS to "on" is undefined behaviour (see 6.10.8.3, 7.6 and
> Annex F), unless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59755
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, there is:
/* If the df_live problem is not defined, such as at -O0 and -O1, we
still need to keep the luids up to date. This is normally done
in the df_live problem since this problem has a f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59756
Bug ID: 59756
Summary: off-by-one error in regex
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59754
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31795
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31795&action=edit
gcc49-pr59754.patch
Untested fix. Tried to think if the other (older) REE transformations aren't
wrong for vecto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 10 13:07:42 2014
New Revision: 206523
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206523&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59374
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The actual REGNO != REGNO transformation is correct, the problem is that the
second extension is to a wider mode and while handling that we change the
destination mode on the def_insn to an even wider mode. T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59755
Arjun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #3 from Arjun ---
Why is tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
Looking even deeper, there are two problems. The first is that we miss C in
type hiearchy graph.
C however may be defined in other unit. We do mistake already while walking B.
There are two variants of B::fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59755
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Please read the section on -Wsequence-point:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59757
Bug ID: 59757
Summary: Unexpected VN_TOP in SSCVN
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59757
--- Comment #1 from Joey Ye ---
foo.c: In function 'univision_ug2828gfeff01_init':
foo.c:119:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected ssa_name, have
var_de
cl in vn_reference_compute_hash, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:631
univision_ug2828gfeff01_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59756
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57965
Bug 57965 depends on bug 57959, which changed state.
Bug 57959 Summary: [F03] ICE with structure constructor with scalar allocatable
components
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
What|Removed |Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59756
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The garbage is because your program has a bug. You match a temporary string, so
the smatch object contains invalid iterators into an object that no longer
exists.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> *** Bug 57959 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
carry-over from the above:
Loosely related: PR 49213.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59758
Bug ID: 59758
Summary: [4.9 Regression] bootstrap failure in
libsanitizer/asan on sparc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59687
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 10 14:30:27 2014
New Revision: 206525
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59687
* doc/xml/manual/backwards_compatibility.xml
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59687
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59698
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 10 14:30:21 2014
New Revision: 206524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59698
* doc/xml/manual/status_cxx1998.xml (iso.1998.sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59699
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59699
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 10 14:30:32 2014
New Revision: 206526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206526&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59699
* doc/xml/manual/support.xml (std.support.types.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58624
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59698
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59387
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31797
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31797&action=edit
gcc49-pr59387.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9744
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 10 15:12:03 2014
New Revision: 206529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/9744
gcc:
* aarch64-modes.def (CC_Zmode): New flags
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59744
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57577
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59744
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 10 15:21:21 2014
New Revision: 206530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206530&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59744
Fix ChangeLog typos in previous commit (r206529).
Mo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
Barry Tannenbaum changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.m.tannenbaum at intel
dot co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16168
Oren Ben-Kiki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-o...@ben-kiki.org
--- Comment #6 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57577
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> This has been fixed (199971 still ICEs, but 200471 is ok).
Shouldn't we add the testcase?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57577
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Shouldn't we add the testcase?
We already have one: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/pr57577.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16168
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Oren Ben-Kiki from comment #6)
> This still occurs in 4.8.2, and is an extremely annoying issue; it makes
> -Weffc++ very difficult to apply to a code base.
So don't use -Weffc++ then. It's fla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not everything in glibc headers is meant for use by other packages, some
symbols in there are just implementation details that can change any time.
The affinity support is complicated, as it has changed severa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16168
--- Comment #8 from o...@ben-kiki.org ---
Well... it does provide some really useful stuff.
I think it is reasonable to expect that as long as -Weffc++ is in the
compiler, it should make sense, and this specific behavior doesn't. If it
has other f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #1 from Gereon Kremer ---
Created attachment 31800
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31800&action=edit
Preprocessed file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59730
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Backporting makes sense to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58346
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
--- Comment #16 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
Created attachment 31801
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31801&action=edit
Backtrace from non-checked 4.7.4 build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59757
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23485|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Bug ID: 59759
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, using
std::enable_if on classes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16168
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to oren from comment #8)
> I think it is reasonable to expect that as long as -Weffc++ is in the
> compiler, it should make sense, and this specific behavior doesn't. If it
> has other flaws, well
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #3 from Gereon Kremer ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I'd say a dup of PR59115.
I checked the following code from PR59115 that should also trigger this bug:
template void foo(T, U) {}
void bar()
{
foo(0, 0);
}
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59727
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
--- Comment #15 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 31802
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31802&action=edit
Fix gcc's emission of assembler directives for a variable length structure
Hi Guys,
I think that the problem i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 10 16:54:43 2014
New Revision: 206533
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206533&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54300
gcc:
* regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16168
--- Comment #10 from Oren Ben-Kiki ---
All good points, which you could say about many opened bugs.
The `-Weffc++` flag is a useful tool to keep large code bases working, even
when written by less-than-guru C++ programmers. As someone tending a l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59760
Bug ID: 59760
Summary: use_thunk internal error on default destructor
declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59431
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Yeah, I didn't think that would fix this problem, I was just hoping for more
consistent error messages--e.g., "out of memory" rather than "caught signal
while mallocing: 10".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The item_count variable serves two purposes. This was done because we were
trying to preserve dtp space and ABI compatibility. I dont remember all the
details of why. At any rate, when reading logicals we h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59747
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
In response to your question in c#6, if you use the most obvious form:
ORIG:
(set (reg1) (expression))
(set (reg2) (any_extend (reg1))
TRANSFORMED:
(set (reg1) (any_extend (expression)))
(set (reg2) (reg1))
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
