https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Is the following patch acceptable while waiting for a better understanding of
the problem?
--- ../_clean/gcc/config/i386/i386.c2014-07-02 23:54:09.0 +0200
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61726
Bug ID: 61726
Summary: Ambiguous overload resolution with inherited op()s
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT the patch also fixes pr58883.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58883
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT this PR is fixed by the patch for pr61459.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61727
Bug ID: 61727
Summary: #pragma simd is undocumented
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6940
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Jul 6 19:00:10 2014
New Revision: 212312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/6940
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -Wsizeof-array-argument.
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6940
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61727
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most of the openmp ones are also undocumented, see bug 26154.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61636
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|adam at jessamine dot co.uk|abutcher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61636
--- Comment #5 from Adam Butcher ---
In an attempt to get a reduced testcase, I've uncovered an ICE. With the extra
"this->" qualification on the reference to 'f' below, the code compiles fine.
Alternatively, if 'this' is explicitly captured, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61728
Bug ID: 61728
Summary: [4.10 regression] lost symbol
FUNC:_ZNK10__cxxabiv117__pbase_type_info15__pointer_ca
tchEPKS0_PPvj@@CXXABI_1.3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #12 from Joshua Kinard ---
So I discovered the presence of the --disable-linux-futex configure flag,
rebuilt gcc-4.9.0 with it, and tested my conftest.c testcase, and can confirm
that the resulting binary no longer hangs on a futex sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61636
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61729
Bug ID: 61729
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/abi/scoped1.C -std=gnu++11 execution
test
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61636
--- Comment #7 from tower120 ---
I'm not sure what you mean, about adding "this->". But this case is not working
:
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/d69de477f9a746cb
But to be true, it not work with clang either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61679
--- Comment #6 from Trevor Saunders ---
> --- Comment #4 from Gary Funck ---
> Created attachment 33076
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33076&action=edit
> make log after trying patch
thanks! I think the attached patch sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61679
--- Comment #7 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Trevor Saunders from comment #6)
> thanks! I think the attached patch should fix all of those issues, would
> you mind testing it?
Confirmed. With that patch, the stage1 compiler compiled successf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #10 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Yes. I see. The patch is in review. But no feedback although I had pinged it
for three times.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01325.html
I will go on ping it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61640
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jul 7 03:35:09 2014
New Revision: 212319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-06 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk.
PR libgfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61499
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61640
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jul 7 03:58:16 2014
New Revision: 212321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-06 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline.
PR libgfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61640
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61640
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jul 7 04:22:29 2014
New Revision: 212322
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212322&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/61640
* gfortran.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61730
Bug ID: 61730
Summary: Cygwin AVX __m256i return value misaligned
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
26 matches
Mail list logo
