https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80634
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Did you also try to benchmark it? Last time I checked a similar example, both
versions had similar performance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
If you mark "get" as noexcept, the warning disappears. If get throws an
exception, you can very well end up running the destructor without having
initialized the members. The warning seems correct to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20170505
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80639
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80639
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm starting to think we should just make libstdc++ headers 100% warning-free
and stop marking them as system headers with the pragmas. When they're
installed under /usr they'd still be considered system h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> I'm starting to think we should just make libstdc++ headers 100%
> warning-free and stop marking them as system headers with the pragmas. When
> they're install
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71577
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri May 5 09:02:22 2017
New Revision: 247630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-05-05 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71577
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71577
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 regression] ICE on |[6/7 regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #4 from Pedro Alves ---
Hi Marc, thanks much for taking a look.
Looks like I over reduced in the minimal reproducer. std::optional has a
boolean field to track whether the contained object had been fully initialized,
which is checke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
Bug ID: 80640
Summary: Missing memory side effect
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
Bug ID: 80641
Summary: Warning with std::vector resize in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
If I (very hackishly) enable A + CST CMP A -> A CMP' CST' without single_use,
and (unsigned long)x==0 --> x==0, we simplify quite a bit more and the warning
disappears.
(and there would still be some margin,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56532
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53896
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64238
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Ian can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Indeed, it's what allows us to use variadic templates in C++98 mode, for
example. And I don't think there's any way to use
__attribute__((__extension__)) on template parameter packs to do that
differently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Pedro Alves from comment #4)
> Looks like I over reduced in the minimal reproducer. std::optional has a
> boolean field to track whether the contained object had been fully
> initialized, whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #6 from Pedro Alves ---
That kind of makes sense if you look at optional in isolation, but why does
it _not_ warn if you remove anything related to B and leave only A? That's
what's truly mystifying to me.
Even this change makes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79665
--- Comment #17 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to wilco from comment #16)
> (In reply to wilco from comment #14)
> > (In reply to PeteVine from comment #13)
> > > Still, the 5% regression must have happened very recently. The fast gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63407
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80642
Bug ID: 80642
Summary: lambdas made constexpr in cases where they don't
satisfy the requirements for it
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80642
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin
---
Created attachment 41325
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41325&action=edit
Test case
Previous tarball was too big. I stripped all debug info from the lib and it
should work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
The warning comes from
_Z3setiD.6701 (maybe_a$D6763$m_dummy_6);
which is protected by
_9 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(maybe_a$4_7);
if (_9 != 0)
with
# maybe_a$D6763$m_dummy_6 = PHI
# maybe_a$4_7 = PHI <0(6),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
Backtrace from gdb is more complete:
...
(gdb) bt
#0 0x767811e2 in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 0x027412bd in libiberty_vprintf_buffer_size (format=0x2752b6b
"%s:%d["00"]", args=0x7fffbe7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #7)
> Backtrace from gdb is more complete:
Backtrace looks similar to PR 80556 comment 3. Problem in that PR also is with
g-exptty.adb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
--- Comment #8 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Fri May 5 13:21:28 2017
New Revision: 247635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-05 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613
--- Comment #9 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As suggested by Richard, the commit partially reverts r247407 by removing the
hunk from propagate_necessity().
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin
---
I agree the volatile shoud fix thing> I'll have to see with the ompi guys to
fix that.
But shouldn't __atomic_thread_fence () have a side effect here and force the
memory to be reloaded ?
If it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80628
--- Comment #1 from George R. ---
Created attachment 41326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41326&action=edit
Preproccessed source file.
Added preprocessed source file.
Use:
1) gcc UnifyFunctionExitNodes.cpp -c -ggnu-pubnames
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
I think the bug is that on x86 __atomic_thread_fence(x) is expanded into
nothing for x!=__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, it should place a compiler barrier similar to
expansion of __atomic_signal_fence.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80263
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Something like __builtin_unreachable() to say "trust me" would be nice, but I
can't think how to do it. So maybe we just want to use a #pragma around the
std::optional destructor to suppress this warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin
---
Ok. So there's something wrong :)
I'll make a work around for SUSE while waiting for a fix in GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80590
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Backtrace looks similar to PR 80556 comment 3. Problem in that PR also is
> with g-exptty.adb.
If it is a duplicate of pr80556, it should start at r247301.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #9 from Pedro Alves ---
> So maybe we just want to use a #pragma around the std::optional destructor to
> suppress this warning.
I had tried that last night, but unfortunately it couldn't get it to work,
because the warning triggers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Pedro Alves from comment #9)
> I had tried that last night, but unfortunately it couldn't get it to work,
> because the warning triggers in A, not optional.
Bah! When we want the warning loca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #57 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 5 15:38:04 2017
New Revision: 247639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77728
* config/arm/arm.c: Include gimple.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71607
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri May 5 15:41:28 2017
New Revision: 247640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR71607: Fix ICE when loading constant
2017-05-05 Andre V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80558
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 15:43:22 2017
New Revision: 247641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80558
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80558
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80632
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 16:02:44 2017
New Revision: 247642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80632
* tree-switch-conversion.c (str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Carlo Wood changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlo at gcc dot gnu.org
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80643
Bug ID: 80643
Summary: NA->FAIL: gcc.dg/pr79214.c gcc.dg/pr79222.c
gcc.dg/pr79223.c
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtins-folding-gimple-ub.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
Thanks for tracing that down.
So perf runs out of memory for the locked trace buffers
Increasing the limit is a good workaround
ulimit -l may also work, but also needs root.
We could just pass a smaller -m v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80644
Bug ID: 80644
Summary: [8 regression] many test cases fails starting with
247622
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80643
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80644
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80643
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80643
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80645
Bug ID: 80645
Summary: [8 regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_3.f90 -O1 (test
for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Something like __builtin_unreachable() to say "trust me" would be nice, but
> I can't think how to do it.
Some __builtin_unreachable() in _M_get might (?) be us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri May 5 20:09:20 2017
New Revision: 247655
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247655&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-05 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80260
--- Comment #3 from Damian Rouson ---
The same code causes an ICE with the 7.1.0 release. Is there a fix on the 8
branch or any related updates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79203
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 5 20:21:15 2017
New Revision: 247657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247657&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-05-05 Michael Meissner
PR target/79038
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79038
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 5 20:21:15 2017
New Revision: 247657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247657&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-05-05 Michael Meissner
PR target/79038
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79202
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 5 20:21:15 2017
New Revision: 247657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247657&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-05-05 Michael Meissner
PR target/79038
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80121
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri May 5 21:00:53 2017
New Revision: 247662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-05 Janus Weil
Backport from trunk
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80121
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68800
Bug 68800 depends on bug 80121, which changed state.
Bug 80121 Summary: Memory leak with derived-type intent(out) argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80121
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80121
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79512
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:23:09 2017
New Revision: 247667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-16 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79559
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:24:50 2017
New Revision: 247668
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247668&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-18 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79568
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:25:59 2017
New Revision: 247669
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247669&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-20 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79494
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:27:17 2017
New Revision: 247670
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247670&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79641
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:28:09 2017
New Revision: 247672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79570
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:29:10 2017
New Revision: 247673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79639
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:30:03 2017
New Revision: 247674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79664
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:31:37 2017
New Revision: 247675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79396
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:32:50 2017
New Revision: 247676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-25 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79729
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:33:43 2017
New Revision: 247677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-28 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79681
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:34:36 2017
New Revision: 247678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-01 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79807
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:35:28 2017
New Revision: 247679
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247679&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-03 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79901
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:35:58 2017
New Revision: 247680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-07 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79901
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:36:54 2017
New Revision: 247681
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247681&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-07 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79940
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:37:47 2017
New Revision: 247682
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247682&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-08 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79932
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:38:35 2017
New Revision: 247683
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247683&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-09 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79932
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:39:18 2017
New Revision: 247684
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247684&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-09 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79944
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:40:10 2017
New Revision: 247685
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247685&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-09 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79896
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:41:16 2017
New Revision: 247686
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247686&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80097
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:42:05 2017
New Revision: 247687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-21 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80129
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:42:51 2017
New Revision: 247688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-22 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80141
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 5 21:43:38 2017
New Revision: 247689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-03-22 Jakub Jelinek
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
