https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67004
Bug ID: 67004
Summary: valgrind error in recog_memoized & shorten_branches
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64989
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #1)
> PR c++/64989
> * pt.c (splice_late_return_type): Correct deduced return type for
> abbreviated function template.
Oops, wrong PR number.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64969
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 25 07:12:31 2015
New Revision: 226208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64969
* pt.c (splice_late_return_type): Correct ded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64969
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64969
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno.manga95 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66266
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67004
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005
Bug ID: 67005
Summary: ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop
with header n not in loop tree)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66648
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 25 09:19:24 2015
New Revision: 226212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66648
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #14)
> (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
> > The toplevel "make -k check" on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu is running.
> > I'll report back when it completes.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
For this test case
static volatile int* const g_0 = (volatile int*)0x1240;
static volatile int* const g_1 = (volatile int*)0x1244;
static volatile int* const g_2 = (volatile int*)0x1248;
static volatile int* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67004
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 25 11:34:59 2015
New Revision: 226215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226215&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67004
* config/i386/i386.h (ADJUST_INSN_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Mat Cross from comment #14)
> For the record, perhaps it is of interest for me to note that we are running
> into this (cf. PR64230 comment 9) on code like
>
> Program test
> Implicit None
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jul 25 14:07:17 2015
New Revision: 226218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/66930
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_split_movrt_negc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jul 25 14:13:48 2015
New Revision: 226219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-07-25 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67006
Bug ID: 67006
Summary: type-specifier const in declaration of anonymous union
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Sutton ---
Created attachment 36054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36054&action=edit
Optimize constraint decomposition by contraction
The problem isn't strictly related to decomposition -- it's n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #18 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67007
Bug ID: 67007
Summary: [c++-concepts] Deduction constraint
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67008
Bug ID: 67008
Summary: Qualified name-lookup in using-declaration fails
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67008
--- Comment #1 from Anders Granlund ---
Forgot the command line:
g++ prog.cc -std=c++14 -pedantic-errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67010
Bug ID: 67010
Summary: Name hiding in the same declarative region fails when
done via using-directive
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67009
Bug ID: 67009
Summary: libsanitizer: shift overflow warnings when boot
strapping 32 bit library
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat Jul 25 18:51:23 2015
New Revision: 226224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gfortran.dg/class_to_type_4.f90 deallocation code misordering failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> The patches have been committed.
I mean the (single) patch has been committed on the two branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60970
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Patch available: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02162.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67009
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
tsan should not be building for 32bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46936
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17308
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@sf-mail.de
--- Comment #10 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44081
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64463
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning seems correct as Foo::~Foo is not used and the function can be used
outside of the current translation unit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64463
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This is handled before reaching the middle-end, thus it would need to be
detected in the FE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67011
Bug ID: 67011
Summary: division by zero in std::exponential_distribution
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67012
Bug ID: 67012
Summary: decltype(auto) with trailing return type
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes maybe a dup of PR99 but it looks like all the examples in that bug involve
an overload and using the parameter names from the wrong overload. Here it uses
the parameter from a function that never partic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Sat Jul 25 23:15:44 2015
New Revision: 226228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/66857
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/66857
* cvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
Bug ID: 67013
Summary: Compilation error for well-formed program with empty
declaration in the global namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Did this change between C++98 and C++14 because GCC has the following in its
source:
/* A declaration consisting of a single semicolon is
invalid. Allow it unless we're being pedantic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67010
--- Comment #1 from Anders Granlund ---
Detailed explanation of how the c++ standard can be applied to the program:
By [namespace.udir]/2 during the unqualified name lookup of x in sizeof (x),
the declaration struct x {}; appears as if it was de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67014
Bug ID: 67014
Summary: builtin_tolower is inefficient.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #55 from Oleg Endo ---
Can we close this as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #48 from Oleg Endo ---
Can we close this as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63321
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Another example:
unsigned int
count_trailing_nonzero_bits (unsigned int v, unsigned int c)
{
c += v & 1;
v >>= 1;
c += v & 1;
v >>= 1;
c += v & 1;
v >>= 1;
c += v & 1;
v >>= 1;
c += v & 1;
v
47 matches
Mail list logo
