https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63457
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61442
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61347
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36534
--- Comment #12 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Sat Oct 4 10:18:07 2014
New Revision: 215887
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215887&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/36534
* resolve.c (resolve_fl_procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36534
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> Whether this is a back-end fault or perhaps a constraint of darwin not
> present for binutils-ld I cannot tell immediately and would welcome input
> from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63429
--- Comment #1 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tbsaunde
Date: Sat Oct 4 13:29:26 2014
New Revision: 215888
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215888&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix dupplicate declaration of ggc_realloc in gencondmd
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Let's work on the principle that the linker is DTRT (it seems reasonable, at
least).
---
So, I started to try and replicate what the failing case was doing with a "c"
equivalent.
My investigations are not co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63458
Bug ID: 63458
Summary: myclassobj >> charac compiles without warning, EVEN
though ONLY operator>>(std::string&) exists
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63458
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
You forgot to mark your operator bool as explicit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63458
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Actually, I do get a warning:
s.c:29:13: warning: 'ch' is used uninitialized in this function
[-Wuninitialized]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63458
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Though we could probably add a warning for:
int f(bool b)
{
return b>>3;
}
since it is unusual to use >> on a boolean, and it would catch your testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46539
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63262
--- Comment #2 from karsten ---
Created attachment 33646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33646&action=edit
compilation with "-save-temps" using the actual gmic git version
This ii file was generated with the gmic git versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63262
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61898
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
The patch has several issues (making it currently fail bootstrap):
- it warns for vfprintf too (fixed)
- on i386 it gets confused between va_list * and char *, so something like
char *format;
char buf[100];
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #15 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Thanks to H.J. for the test case, I have reproduced the issue. It
>> exposed two separate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60990
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63458
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63459
Bug ID: 63459
Summary: operator new and returns_nonnull
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
I can't reproduce with a vanilla gcc-4.8.3 configured for m68k-elf. For the
"if (0x0 == haddr) ..." it generates:
lea (20,%sp),%sp
tst.l %d2
seq %d2
extb.l %d2
ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> Thanks to H.J. for the test cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63459
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
VRP already optimizes this, doesn't it?
Adding an implicit __attribute__((nonnull(1))) to all C++ member functions
might be good, but it also sounds a bit scary to me...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> As of now, I suspect that the placement into the .const section *might* be
> fallout from the "restrict" markup.
To confirm whether it was linked to rest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63459
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63459
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> I wonder if we can fold this earlier, for instance FRE1 has all info to do
> the job, too.
Note that this is also done in fold-const.c (tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p). T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60990
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62121
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing the following for 4.9 branch:
Index: ipa-devirt.c
===
--- ipa-devirt.c(revision 215890)
+++ ipa-devirt.c(working copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing the following for 4.9-branch:
Index: cgraphclones.c
===
--- cgraphclones.c (revision 215890)
+++ cgraphclones.c (working c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27466|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #31 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #30)
> Created attachment 33647 [details]
> create locations from loc + offset
>
> This variant works for simple strings. However, it cannot handle even s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> The ideal fix for this would adding a function like:
I forgot about this bug and redid the above from scratch. But this time, I
actually tested that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Oct 5 02:37:31 2014
New Revision: 215894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/62026
* g++.dg/lto/pr62026.C: New testcase.
* lto-str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62121
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Oct 5 02:50:01 2014
New Revision: 215895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/62121
* ipa-devirt.c (restrict_to_inner_class): Do not ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62121
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] Crash in |[5 Regression] Crash in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #34 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Oct 5 04:56:14 2014
New Revision: 215897
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/61144
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61144.c: New testcase.
Added:
44 matches
Mail list logo
