https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #57 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
>
> --- Comment #56 from Bill Schmidt ---
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67183
--- Comment #2 from Jay ---
er, three traversals.
Also, ideally, nothing is ever output in hash order.
At least not to assembly source and objects. It might be unavoidable for final
executables.
i.e. adding one randomly named function should no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #58 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #56)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #53)
> > I'm not a fan of a tree-level unroller. It's impossible to make good
> > decisions about unroll factor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67141
--- Comment #2 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
Note that you'll need mingw-w64 4.0.4, not 4.0.2 to reproduce, I used gcc
5.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67132
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |preprocessor
--- Comment #3 from Marek P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67183
--- Comment #3 from Jay ---
https://github.com/modula3/cm3/commit/14d5e667e19abaab679b52bc8fd35a4e38073330
is a simple patch against 4.7 that establishes a partial ordering,
separating the indirect functions from the indirect data,
and appears t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66801
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67132
--- Comment #4 from Giacomo Tesio ---
Indeed, this is a request for an enhancement, not a bug report.
I mean, being able to decide how gcc defines wchar_t is an enhancement, given
the poor definition of such type in the standard.
With -Wno-point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gpderetta at gmail dot com |
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gpderetta at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55892
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
We now warn for the testcase in Comment 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 27120, which changed state.
Bug 27120 Summary: Should warn about uninitialized use of variable array element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27120
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27120
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
Bug 10138 depends on bug 27120, which changed state.
Bug 27120 Summary: Should warn about uninitialized use of variable array element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27120
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67190
Bug ID: 67190
Summary: gcc allows extra template <> on explicit template
specializations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25702
--- Comment #11 from Mark Eklund ---
-Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess is definitely a good targeted fix and probably hits
a majority of what I've seen. I'm good with this being resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67190
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #59 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #57)
>
> It's been a long time since I've done SPEC measuring with/without
> -funroll-loops (or/and -fpeel-loops). Note that these flags have
> secondary effects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67127
--- Comment #1 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed Aug 12 13:27:41 2015
New Revision: 226811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Yvan Roux
PR target/67127
* config/arm/arm.md (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Bug ID: 67191
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in before_dom_children, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:4372
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
Testing a fix for the sign bit problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #14 from vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67098
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67099
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If this ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00603.html ) gets
approved, --with-host-libstdcxx will be removed, and we can mark this as
resolved-wont-fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67170
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, the argument may go like "foo (&D.3438) may not modify *arg_29(D)
because then the fnspec on foo would be incorrect - *arg_29(D) would be
modified".
Untested patch (works for the testcase):
Index: gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Let's add a testcase and close the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35234
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, maybe just the reduced testcase no longer fails after r226814.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Oh, maybe just the reduced testcase no longer fails after r226814.
Still fails on ppc64le after r226814. So a cross should reproduce this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Antoine Balestrat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoine.balestrat at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 12 14:47:58 2015
New Revision: 226816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/47461
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
Bug ID: 67192
Summary: Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:13:35 2015
New Revision: 226819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove --with-host-libstdcxx
2015-08-12 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67098
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:13:35 2015
New Revision: 226819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove --with-host-libstdcxx
2015-08-12 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67099
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67098
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #14 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:40:11 2015
New Revision: 226820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix warnings when bootstrapping on darwin with vtable verificat
(char *p) {
^
$ bin/g++ -O -c -Wstack-usage=898989 t.cc
$ bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150812 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Sorokin ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #0)
> g++ fails to warn about the extra parameter list. clang does warn, see
> PR63750.
Why is it a warning? Isn't this code incorrect? I can not find anything in
[temp.e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66941
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 12 17:18:14 2015
New Revision: 226824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/52742
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|M at ttDiese
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67194
Bug ID: 67194
Summary: Missed jump thread and false positive from
-Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #19 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 12 17:25:23 2015
New Revision: 226826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/55095
* c-common.c (maybe_warn_shift_overflow):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 17:33:39 2015
New Revision: 226827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67161
* error.c (dump_decl) [TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR]: Pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67195
Bug ID: 67195
Summary: cpp and g++ does not define __GLIBCXX__
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:02:35 2015
New Revision: 226829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67108
* decl2.c (c_parse_final_cleanups): Set at_eo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:02:43 2015
New Revision: 226830
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226830&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67104
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_array_reference): Han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:05:49 2015
New Revision: 226831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67161
* error.c (dump_decl) [TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR]: Pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
-Wtautological-compare has been added to GCC 6. -Wlogical-op is older, but the
part of it that warns about "i && i" is new and has only been added to GCC 6.
I agree about closing the bug now, BTW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:08:45 2015
New Revision: 226833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67104
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_array_reference): Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
I meant "agree with closing".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #18 from Yann Collet ---
This issue makes me wonder : how to efficiently access unaligned memory ?
The case in point is ARM cpu.
They don't support SSE/AVX, so they seem unaffected by this specific issue,
but this issue force writin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Yann Collet from comment #18)
> This issue makes me wonder : how to efficiently access unaligned memory ?
>
>
> The case in point is ARM cpu.
> They don't support SSE/AVX, so they seem unaffe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Bug ID: 67196
Summary: Another false positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66631
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at mit dot edu
--- Comment #17 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67197
Bug ID: 67197
Summary: GCC_FINAL causes bootstrap failure on AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67197
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66631
--- Comment #18 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #17)
> I'll chime in, possibly uselessly.
>
> Before Linux 4.1, only CS was saved. (Unless you go *way* back.) In 4.1
> or newer, SS is saved, too.
>
> In 64-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67172
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, breedlove.matt at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67172
>
> --- Comment #3 from Matt Breedlove ---
> In gcc/defaults.h, it gets def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Bugs in -fsignaling-nans (in this case, that a conversion of a signaling
NaN from float to double is incorrectly folded) should be fixed just like
any other bug. That sentence is simply wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67172
--- Comment #5 from Matt Breedlove ---
On previous builds, you could have DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO be defined and have
EH_FRAME_SECTION_NAME undefined within libgcc2.c (the section name was still
defined within cygming-crtbegin.c - crtbegin.o). When c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67071
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Aug 12 21:54:23 2015
New Revision: 226836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-08-12 Michael Meissner
PR target/67071
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53330
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 12 22:38:04 2015
New Revision: 226840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53330
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53330
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Anton Blanchard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at samba dot org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67198
Bug ID: 67198
Summary: gccgo: change of type of syscall.RawSockaddr.Data on
ppc64 breaks compilation of existing programs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #9 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
I did experiment with -m[no-]bmi[2] a fair bit. It all made a significant
difference in the instructions emitted, but exactly zero difference in
runtime. That's actually not surprising at all; those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67198
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
I found this, which at first blush seems like it might be relevant.
The hardware complained about here is the same Haswell i7-4770.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25078285/replacing-a-32-bit-loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #60 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #59)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #57)
> >
> > It's been a long time since I've done SPEC measuring with/without
> > -funroll-loops (or/and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #11 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
Aha, Uroš, I see your name in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
Please forgive me for "teaching" you about micro-ops.
The code being generated for all versions does use (e.g.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67199
Bug ID: 67199
Summary: ICE with compile bug related to vector_size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #61 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to amker from comment #60)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #59)
> > We don't have a lot of data yet, but we have seen several examples in SPEC
> > and other benchmarks where turning on -fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25529
--- Comment #3 from naveenh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: naveenh
Date: Thu Aug 13 04:37:22 2015
New Revision: 226847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-13 Naveen H.S
PR middle-end/25529
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #62 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #61)
> (In reply to amker from comment #60)
> > (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #59)
> > > We don't have a lot of data yet, but we have seen several ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #22 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Aug 13 05:25:02 2015
New Revision: 226848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
More split-stack fixes
Backport rev 226443
2015-07-31 Alan Modra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67200
Bug ID: 67200
Summary: Copy elision and implicit move in return performed in
cases not allowed by standard
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
