https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61564
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61564
>
> Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #19 from Shiva Chen ---
2016-06-06 15:41 GMT+08:00 rguenther at suse dot de :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
>
> --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, shiva0217 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70965
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Still broken over a month later in gcc trunk dated 20160608.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, shiva0217 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
>
> --- Comment #19 from Shiva Chen ---
> 2016-06-06 15:41 GMT+08:00 rguenther at suse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71451
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71452
Bug ID: 71452
Summary: Wrong optimization of stores to _Bool via char*
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #3 from Yvan Roux ---
I'd prefer to cherry-pick it now as it'll not change the current behavior and
simplify the job for the ones (like us ;) who monitor Glibc/GCC trunk
developments (not that cherry-picking the fix is complicated, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The C++ FE would need to substitute &"bar" for bar to make the simplification
valid unless we start relying on undefinedness of pointer wrapping (which we
don't seem to). Eventually fold_comparison simply m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I wrote so far
--- fold-const.c.jj12016-06-06 19:39:40.0 +0200
+++ fold-const.c2016-06-08 09:56:56.830326277 +0200
@@ -8527,9 +8527,9 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, you're right.
But e.g.
// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
// { dg-options "-Wunused-variable" }
struct C
{
template
int operator()(Ts &&...)
{
return sizeof...(Ts);
}
};
int
foo ()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, ysrumyan at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
>
> --- Comment #21 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
> Richard!
>
> Are you planning to prepar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. checking #if __cpp_attributes works correctly with all versions of GCC
(with a true result since 4.9.2 and false otherwise), whereas adding a new
__has_feature extension and using #if __has_feature(att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> N.B. checking #if __cpp_attributes works correctly with all versions of GCC
> (with a true result since 4.9.2 and false otherwise), whereas adding a new
> __h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #26 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #22)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #21)
> > The testcase in Comment 14 should now compile fine.
>
> What's the best way to detect that a compiler has thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #21 from Shiva Chen ---
Hi, Richard
On following example
int a = ABS_EXPR (b);
int c = a - 1;
c will get it's range base on a which is ~[INT_MIN+1, -1]
Even if we transfer to
int a = (int) ABSU_EXPR (b);
int c = a - 1;
Therefor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71450
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #27 from Marek Polacek ---
Typo: I meant __GNUC__ >= 7 as this is fixed for GCC 7 and onwards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #28 from Florian Weimer ---
We can put such a version check into the glibc headers and see how it works out
in practice. As long as there is consensus to fix any related breakage
(related to the attribute and forward declarations) fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #29 from Marek Pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That change looks wrong to me though.
If glibc has added symbol versioning and changed ABI for existing symbols that
sanitizer libraries wrap, then I'm afraid either we need to start symbol
versioning libsani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Can we use dlvsym for versioned symbols (recvmsg, sendmsg, etc) in the
wrappers?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71169
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see how that would help much. You still wouldn't know if the recvmsg
or sendmsg that is being called by whatever library and is interposed by
libasan etc. is the one with 64-bit msg_iovlen, msg_contr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, shiva0217 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
>
> --- Comment #21 from Shiva Chen ---
> Hi, Richard
>
> On following example
>
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #1 from Roman Perepelitsa ---
The same bug can lead to incorrect behaviour at run time.
#include
#include
struct S {
int value;
};
void F(S) { puts("right"); }
void F(std::initializer_list) { puts("wrong"); }
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71433
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
The bug was introduced in r236831.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65471
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57745
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
A()
A()
-
~C()
~B()
~B()
~A()
~A()
This is what I am getting from all recent versions of g++ (including 4.9.N) and
clang++ (as opposed to both ~A before in 4.8.N). That's not the exact
order asked i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453
Bug ID: 71453
Summary: Spills to vector registers are sub-optimal.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 38659
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38659&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Must be compiled with -O2 -march=core-avx2 -m32 options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71432
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Wed Jun 8 11:41:54 2016
New Revision: 237208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/71432
PR ada/71413
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Wed Jun 8 11:41:54 2016
New Revision: 237208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/71432
PR ada/71413
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
Bug ID: 71454
Summary: [oop] extend type, missing relationship to baseclass
in DWARF
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Heckel ---
Created attachment 38661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38661&action=edit
Type extend, source example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49475
Bernhard Heckel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.heckel at intel dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
Bernhard Heckel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71451
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71427
Bug ID: 71427
Summary: [7 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-tree-forwprop
(breaks in the .bswap dump)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 12:57:26 2016
New Revision: 237212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71448
* fold-const.c (fold_comparison): Handle CONS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71427
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
*** Bug 71427 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Forgot to mention that number of instructions is on 10% more 632 vs 702 for
spills into vector registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6/7 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71452
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 8 13:11:43 2016
New Revision: 237214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71452
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
--- Comment #5 from Michael Weiser ---
I think it's well estabilished and verified by now that this is an
avr-target-specific regression (which I think is what Richard meant). Is
anybody looking into this? Is more information needed? Can I do any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 68558, which changed state.
Bug 68558 Summary: Fails to SLP loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68558
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68558
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 8 13:28:21 2016
New Revision: 237216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68558
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54939
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So we now would vectorize this but compute the SLP vectorization as never
profitable. Generated code with -fno-vect-cost-model (-Ofast -march=corei7):
.L4:
movupd (%rdx,%rax), %xmm0
movapd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54939
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
With AVX2 we indeed generate
.L4:
vmovupd (%rdx,%rax), %ymm3
addl$1, %r9d
vpermpd $177, %ymm3, %ymm4
vmovapd %ymm3, %ymm2
vmulpd %ymm6, %ymm4, %ymm4
vfms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 61194, which changed state.
Bug 61194 Summary: [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] vectorization failed with
"bit-precision arithmetic not supported" even if conversion to int is requested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #8 from Adhemerval Zanella
---
Indeed I did not take in consideration the versioned issue with interposed
wrapper mainly because the idea of the patch was to fix the static compile
asserts against newer glibc. I see the runtime issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, yyc1992 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
>
> --- Comment #7 from Yichao Yu ---
> If I add `-fvariable-expansion-in-unroller` (omg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
>
> --- Comment #15 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
> Thanks for the sugg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The thing is that programs or libraries compiled/linked against glibc 2.24+
might contain garbage in the high 32 bits of those values.
So using e.g. kernel APIs directly in the wrappers will misbehave and so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> That said, I wonder if it is ok that we don't reject clear out of bound
> POINTER_PLUS_EXPR in constexprs, like:
> static constexpr const char foo[] = "foo";
> sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71337
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59093
--- Comment #11 from Matt Thompson ---
Bug still present in GCC 6.1.0:
(907) $ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.1.0
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
--- Comment #23 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
OK. I will try to prepare the second part of patch.
Few comments about vect-simd-clone-5.c test failure.
1. This loop is marked with safelen=MAX_INT.
2. It contains the following stmt's:
D.3301 = foo.simdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #10 from Adhemerval Zanella
---
I think add versioned symbols in libsanitizer seems feasible with current
supported platforms and seems to be the more complete fix. I will check on
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71455
Bug ID: 71455
Summary: On files with many functions, gcc 4.8.3 is much slower
than v4.4.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71456
Bug ID: 71456
Summary: missing -Wunused-variable on a static global
initialized with another
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
For reference, I opened bug 71456 for the problems I noted in comment #2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Michael Weiser from comment #5)
> I think it's well estabilished and verified by now that this is an
> avr-target-specific regression (which I think is what Richard meant).
Well, "avr-specifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erich.keane at intel dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67824
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71457
Bug ID: 71457
Summary: valid pointer plus conversion to bool rejected in
constexpr context
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 67824, which changed state.
Bug 67824 Summary: constexpr char* compare operations not constexpr, but char[]
operations ARE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67824
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 71372 which has already been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #4 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> I just happened to be looking into this report and it's not clear to me
> whether or not the warning should be expected in this case. The
> documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I understand that and agree that there is a set of use cases where users don't
expect a warning. There is also another set of cases where a warning would be
helpful: If the unused variable in the submitted t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71458
Bug ID: 71458
Summary: ICE with -fsanitize=bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71416
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-06-06 00:00:00 |2016-6-8
CC
&&
./a.out
Floating point exception
--
gcc version: gcc (GCC) 7.0.0 20160608 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71459
Bug ID: 71459
Summary: ICE writing to a string-initialized local array in a
constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #6 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> I understand that and agree that there is a set of use cases where users
> don't expect a warning. There is also another set of cases where a warning
> wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71416
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> Also, I'll add that the warning cannot be silenced with a #pragma, so I
> can't, for example, disable it for libresiprocate headers and leave it
> enabled for my code.
I think either Paolo or me fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71460
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is really a dup of bug 57484. The problem is x87 related and
there is not much to be done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57484
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71460
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> - padding in long double is not copied. Probably ok (in the same way as
> padding
> in substructures is not always copied);
Yes, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56831
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 17:57:30 2016
New Revision: 237232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71442
* pt.c (tsubst_copy): Only set TREE_USED on D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 18:00:30 2016
New Revision: 237233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71442
* pt.c (tsubst_copy): Only set TREE_USED on D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 18:05:38 2016
New Revision: 237234
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237234&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71442
* pt.c (tsubst_copy): Only set TREE_USED on D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71461
Bug ID: 71461
Summary: missed optimization in conditional assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
