https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65673
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4)
> Created attachment 35342 [details]
> prototype patch
>
> This seems to cure the testcase. I haven't bootstrapped it, and it probably
> isn't ideal since I haven't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64741
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61547
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 07:44:30 2015
New Revision: 222166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/65771
* dwarf2out.c (loc_list_from_tree): Return NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 07:45:46 2015
New Revision: 222167
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222167&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/65771
* dwarf2out.c (loc_list_from_tree): Return NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
When doing LTO early-debug work I stumbled over one reason we can crash here
which I fixed with
Index: dwarf2out.c
===
*** dwarf2out.c (revis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] ICE (in|ICE (in loc_list_from_tree,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65790
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Which means that -gstrict-dwarf should be a workaround for this and the dups.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
ce if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
lto-wrapper: fatal error: /home/avi/gcc5/bin/g++5 returned 1 exit status
compilation terminated.
g++5 (GCC) 6.0.0 20150417 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 35343
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35343&action=edit
patch
Patch I am testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #27 from Avi Kivity ---
Patch fixes the problem for me (though the linker still fails)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2015-04/msg00371.html :
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 17 09:26:59 2015
New Revision: 222173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Postpone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2015-04/msg00372.html :
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 17 09:27:08 2015
New Revision: 222174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222174&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Set PROP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65791
Bug ID: 65791
Summary: Postpone expand_ifn_va_arg till after
optimize_va_list_gpr_fpr_size
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51153
Bug 51153 depends on bug 64950, which changed state.
Bug 64950 Summary: postpone expanding va_arg till pass_stdarg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65791
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
So the context I put the stub DIE in is technically wrong. Thus some more
analysis results. The reason why we end up populating the limbo_die_list
from the force_decl_die path is because we refuse to put
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65460
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
stage1 ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00861.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.2, 5.0, 6.0
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact comment 3 doesn't even need C++11, it's valid C++03.
It came from http://stackoverflow.com/a/29696258/981959
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #61
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
Works for me. Of course we should hunt down IL differences that appear with
GC.
It's just a lurking bug that can hit the non-GC checking path as well.
But all this is exceptionally hard to track down :/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527
--- Comment #3 from ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Fri Apr 17 12:14:24 2015
New Revision: 222176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/64527
gcc/
PR c++/64527
* gimplify.c (gimp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57965
Bug 57965 depends on bug 55932, which changed state.
Bug 55932 Summary: [F03] ICE for structure constructor with scalar allocatable
component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Bug ID: 65792
Summary: allocation of scalar elemental function with structure
constructor fails
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65793
Bug ID: 65793
Summary: Libstdc++ docs on _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS are
duplicated
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65793
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61275
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #55 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35344
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35344&action=edit
Increment the pc in the callback routine for backtrace_full
Always increment the pc in the callback,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527
ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65794
Bug ID: 65794
Summary: Building crossback fails: No rule to make target
`auto-build.h', needed by `build/genmddeps.o'
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to vries from comment #7)
> Marking resolved, fixed.
So, can PR41089 hack [1] finally be reverted?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00072.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #46 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > And I haven't looked yet at Dominique's feedback in comment #43.
>
> The test in comment #41 fails at run time when compiled with
> -fsanitize=address.
> If I take the "complement" of the reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65612
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 12:58:07 2015
New Revision: 222178
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Hide __cpu_indicator_init/__cpu_model from linker
We shouldn't cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65673
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
What happens here is that pop_init_level returns error_mark_node because
initializing a zero-length array member with {} is discarded:
7565 /* Silently discard empty initializations. The parser will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #56 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Here is a bit more detail. Now that I think I understand all the
considerations, I'm proposing this simple fix for gcc 5. Maybe longer term a
more thorough solution could be done but not sure it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Updated patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00883.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65612
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 13:54:16 2015
New Revision: 222179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65296
* config/avr/gen-avr-mmcu-specs.c (*avrlibc_start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 14:16:30 2015
New Revision: 222181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/65771
* dwarf2out.c (mem_loc_descriptor): For CONST, fal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 17 14:50:50 2015
New Revision: 222182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-17 Bill Schmidt
PR target/65787
* config/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Jakub pointed out that this is actually a general problem with how I'm handling
PARALLELs elsewhere, which I had missed. Testing a slightly different patch
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
Bug ID: 65795
Summary: Segfault (invalid write) for ALLOCATE statement
involving COARRAYS
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #37 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #35)
> (In reply to torvald from comment #32)
> > (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #28)
> > > This also gives us an easier route to fixing any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
--- Comment #2 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
We've been putting most of the discussion on this in the bugzilla mentioned in
the previous comment.
However there is a simple fix for Power which I will add here:
ndex: libgo/runtime/go-callers.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #38 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> > However, I guess some people relying on data races in their programs could
> > (mis?)understand the __sync_lock_release semantics to mean that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> > This fixes the problem.
>
> Confirmed.
>
> > However, it will produce multiple evaluations of function results
> > and expressions. I will introduce a t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > No RC yet!
>
> What, really?
Now yes. 5.1 should be available in the middle of next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #36 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Patch in c#35 is approved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I applied the patch, and did a make in the built folder. I still get the ICE.
Or do I have to change the file gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c and do a completely
new built of the gcc/gfortran compiler suite?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #37 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 16:23:24 2015
New Revision: 222184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly handle uninitialized common symbol
Uninitialized common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression]|[5 Regression]
|Uninitialize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Please commit it to the branch too, I'll do another RC tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I applied the patch, and did a make in the built folder. I still get the ICE.
Did you do "make install"?
> Or do I have to change the file gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c and do a completely
> new built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #40 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 16:36:22 2015
New Revision: 222185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly handle uninitialized common symbol
Uninitialized common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 16:43:28 2015
New Revision: 222186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65689
* genpreds.c (struct constraint_data): Add maybe_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796
Bug ID: 65796
Summary: unnecessary stack spills during complex numbers
function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression][AArch64] S |[5 Regression][AArch64] S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 17:09:20 2015
New Revision: 222187
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222187&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/62077
* configure.ac (--enable-stage1-checking): Def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #64 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 17:10:27 2015
New Revision: 222189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/62077
* configure.ac (--enable-stage1-checking): Def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57354
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT this PR is fixed at 4.9.2. Any reason why it is not closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Ah that's a pity. I thought that 5.0 had closed when Tobias was
panicking about his co-array patch. I didn't think to check.
Cheers
Paul
On 17 April 2015 at 18:03, dominiq at lps dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42112
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This seems to have been fixed at least for 4.8.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Tobler ---
Author: andreast
Date: Fri Apr 17 17:50:46 2015
New Revision: 222192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65535
* config.gcc: Exit with a comment when we do not have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #39 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #38)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> > > However, I guess some people relying on data races in their programs could
> > > (mis?)understand the __sync_lock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65755
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 18:19:44 2015
New Revision: 222194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65755
compiler, runtime, reflect: Use reflection string f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65755
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:24:17 2015
New Revision: 222195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47679
* Makefile.in (OBJS); Add tree-ssa-scop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #57 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:28 2015
New Revision: 222196
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222196&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:43 2015
New Revision: 222197
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222197&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:28 2015
New Revision: 222196
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222196&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #58 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:43 2015
New Revision: 222197
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222197&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 35346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35346&action=edit
draft patch, untested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 17 20:35:59 2015
New Revision: 222198
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-17 Bill Schmidt
PR target/65787
* config/rs6000/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
Bug ID: 65797
Summary: [5.0 regression] IPA ICF causes function to be emitted
with no debug line info
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This bug may have the same symptoms but it has a completely different cause.
Next time, please do not reopen the bug unless you are certain it has the same
cause. Please open a new bug instead. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65798
Bug ID: 65798
Summary: runtime.Caller returns ok=true when return data is
invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #12 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Sorry I did not intend to reopen a closed bugzilla, I must not have looked
carefully enough and thought it was still open. Just wanted to document what I
found since their log output was the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #13 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:29:08 2015
New Revision: 222199
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64683
runtime/pprof: Assume function with no name is in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:29:08 2015
New Revision: 222199
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64683
runtime/pprof: Assume function with no name is in r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:29:20 2015
New Revision: 00
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=00&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64683
runtime/pprof: Assume function with no name is in r
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
