https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69513
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69916
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37965
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37965&action=edit
gcc6-pr70147-2.patch
As the compromise I meant this instead (incremental patch).
Though, in that case the -fli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70233
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c6 patch bootstrapped/regtested fine on x86_64-linux and i686-linux. I've
additionally gathered statistics using:
--- gcc/combine.c.jj2016-03-14 14:00:24.0 +0100
+++ gcc/combine.c 2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Example of lshiftrt SI DI SI 24 16 is e.g. gcc.c-torture/execute/20030408-1.c
where we have SImode LSHIFTRT of
(subreg:SI (ashift:DI (reg:DI 125)
(const_int 8 [0x8])) 0)
by 24, and is optimized into
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70234
Bug ID: 70234
Summary: HSA back-end produces invalid code for
libgomp.c/examples-4/declare_target-5.c test case
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Created attachment 37965 [details]
> gcc6-pr70147-2.patch
>
this patch looks good to me.
Thanks.
> As the compromise I meant this instead (incremental patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
Bug ID: 70235
Summary: Incorrect output with PF format
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70236
Bug ID: 70236
Summary: Register allocation and loop unrolling lead to waste
of registers
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70236
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 37967
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37967&action=edit
rnreg dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70237
Bug ID: 70237
Summary: Incorrect 0.0 output with PF format
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70187
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70187
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37968
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37968&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #17)
> > As the compromise I meant this instead (incremental patch).
> > Though, in that case the -flifetime-dse=2 clobbers are also wrong in the
> > subobject ctors,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
Bug ID: 70238
Summary: [5/6 Regression] std::future_category ABI change
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
Bug ID: 70239
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in ggc_set_mark
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69184
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69184
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sujoy from comment #3)
> For the previous
> test case you had sent, I see a different failure with trunk -
>
> gcc -w -O3 -floop-interchange pr69184.c
> pr69184.c: In function âfunc_27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #10 from Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69067
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
>
> --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> ---
> On Mon, 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #17)
> >
> > Do you see a way, how to conditionalize the clobber on the in_charge?
>
> Very easily, by wrapping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Component|regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70240
Bug ID: 70240
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in gimplify_modify_expr, at
gimplify.c:4854 with -ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Slightly cleaned up test case:
struct V {
typedef float F;
template void m_fn1(S);
};
template struct A {
typedef V::F Ta __attribute__((__may_alias__));
Ta *m_data;
void m_fn2(V &);
};
templat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70161
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Mar 15 11:51:32 2016
New Revision: 234211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix fdump-ipa-all-graph
2016-03-15 Tom de Vries
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70240
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68809
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And indeed
--- tree-ssa-sccvn.c.jj 2016-02-16 16:14:43.0 +0100
+++ tree-ssa-sccvn.c2016-03-15 13:02:40.876997092 +0100
@@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ VN_INFO_GET (tree name)
newinfo = XOBNEW (&vn_ssa_aux_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not a regression, it is unsupported to mix C++11 objects from gcc4 and gcc5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70229
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #15)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #13)
> > > > Compiler should be free to use rbp in anyway it sees fit. Spec shouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Somehow this doesn't seem to work:
1462 if (typedef_variant_p (t))
1463 /* Explicitly get the underlying type, as TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT
doesn't
1464strip typedefs with attributes. */
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Not a regression, it is unsupported to mix C++11 objects from gcc4 and gcc5.
Just to clarify - the mixed objects are the app built with gcc4 and
libstdc++.so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Trying to creduce the testcase now with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param
ggc-min-heapsize=0 -O2, but it is slow. 32KB testcase is too large for the
testsuite though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
--- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
g++ has generated (what I think is) the incorrect mangling since at least GCC
4.7, so this probably needs to be controlled by yet another -fabi-version
value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Related to pr702357.
Fat fingers;-( Read pr70237.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70237
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70241
Bug ID: 70241
Summary: Enumerators introduced out-of-line by extending an
opaque enum definition always get private
accessibility
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70188
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69789
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Markwalder ---
A bit more digging reveals that in the logic expression which fails:
{{{
// Check if we need to run the operation again.
if (ec == boost::asio::error::would_block
|| ec == boost::asio::er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #17 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #15)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #13)
> > > > > Compiler should be f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Trying to creduce the testcase now with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param
> ggc-min-heapsize=0 -O2, but it is slow. 32KB testcase is too large for the
> tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70240
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #4)
>
> Basically our shared library (not just the object files) has a change in
> one symbol, and we didn't bump either the symversion or the soname,
> which I'd say is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Fixed on trunk sofar. Not exactly planning to backport.
Hm yeah. Although the patch applies and builds on the 5 branch without issues,
test_04 from c#0 doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70238
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz ---
In this particular case the ABI could have been kept compatible if the
_V2::error_category member _M_message (under the old ABI, for the new ABI
the message(int) member) would have been added to the end of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70162
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #17)
> >
> > I assume you were referring to real debugger, like GDB. Spec won't specify
> > where/how/when any register is saved.
>
> From my perspective the spec defines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #19 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #17)
> > >
> > > I assume you were referring to real debugger, like GDB. Spec won't
> > > specify
> > > where/how/when any re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
But we'll get down to "float" if I call strip_typedefs again on result!
Looking more...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
--- Comment #8 from Marcos Diaz ---
Created attachment 37971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37971&action=edit
An implementation for x86 security_sensitive function attribute
Hi, we made this patch, that adds an attribute 's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
So this seems to fix the ICE and passes dg.exp testsuite.
--- a/gcc/cp/tree.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/tree.c
@@ -1462,7 +1462,8 @@ strip_typedefs (tree t, bool *remove_attributes)
if (typedef_variant_p (t))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 37972
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37972&action=edit
Crude test case
In case it's helpful, here's a crude attempt at a black-box test case for this:
read a secret i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70009
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
--- Comment #10 from Marcos Diaz ---
Thanks for the test, we forgot to append some test too. It worked ok. if you
want you can apply that patch in gcc 5.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Mar 15 15:13:29 2016
New Revision: 234216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/64411
* sched-deps.c (get_implicit_reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68809
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37973
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37973&action=edit
tentative patch, fixed both examples
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68809
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, apparently char 0 and int 0 are equal as far as operand_equal_p is
concerned:
...
(gdb) p gimple_phi_arg_def (p1, 0)
$3 = (tree_node *) 0x761463a8
(gdb) p gimple_phi_arg_def (p2, 0)
$4 = (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63384
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Mar 15 15:25:41 2016
New Revision: 234217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/63384
* sel-sched.c (invoke_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64939
--- Comment #2 from Ken Brown ---
This bug is gone as of gcc 5.3.0. It can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64939
--- Comment #3 from Ken Brown ---
This bug is gone as of gcc 5.3.0. It can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70162
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Mar 15 15:36:44 2016
New Revision: 234218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/0
* sel-sched-ir.c (merge_expr): Avoid c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Mar 15 15:42:07 2016
New Revision: 234219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/69032
* sel-sched-ir.c (get_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70209
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70242
Bug ID: 70242
Summary: GCC bootstrap failed on x86_64 using
"--with-build-config=bootstrap-O3"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 15 16:10:59 2016
New Revision: 234221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/70239
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (VN_INFO_GET): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 15 16:11:48 2016
New Revision: 234222
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70222
* combine.c (simplify_shift_cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
Created attachment 37975
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37975&action=edit
proposed patch
This is kind of a hack, but not too bad.
Zdenek, could you please test on that third testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68802
cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68715
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70242
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70240
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70240
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Better gimplify a and b before building the COND_EXPR.
But then you undo the fix for PR middle-end/68215, so you make
c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c
regress again on a bunch of platforms.
Besides gimplifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70240
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
> > Better gimplify a and b before building the COND_EXPR.
>
> But then you undo the fix for PR middle-end/68215, so you make
> c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c
> re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70240
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Well, perhaps even better would be not to build all the trees, but use
> gimple_build () APIs that should also simplify stuff while building it on
> GIMPLE. But that might be too risky for stage4 now.
My p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70222
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 6+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70229
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68715
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to vries from comment #6)
> Created attachment 37976 [details]
> tentative patch, fixes examples from comment 4 and 5.
also fixes the first testcase, thanks!
For whatever reason I had to app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70229
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
And the fix should be just to
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -419,7 +419,8 @@ check_constexpr_ctor_body_1 (tree last, tree list)
switch (TREE_CODE (list))
{
case DECL_EXPR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70243
Bug ID: 70243
Summary: PowerPC V4DFmode should not use Altivec instructions
on VSX systems
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70243
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70242
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
So something like this may work:
diff --git a/config/bootstrap-O3.mk b/config/bootstrap-O3.mk
index b269a3f7e12a..b9881e9c1664 100644
--- a/config/bootstrap-O3.mk
+++ b/config/bootstrap-O3.mk
@@ -1 +1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69735
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
