https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81080
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 21 07:01:34 2017
New Revision: 249435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-21 Richard Biener
PR gcov-profile/81080
* c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81146
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81030
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> Bug seems to occur between gcc revision 248932 and 249008.
Between revisions 248932 and 248951.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ---
Richard,
do you have the i686-pc-linux-gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.* libgomp ICEs with -m64
on the radar? They still happen as of r249422.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81030
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #3)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> > Bug seems to occur between gcc revision 248932 and 249008.
>
> Between revisions 248932 and 248951.
Betwee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
>
> --- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ---
> Richard,
>
> do you have the i686-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> I tried hard to reproduce but failed so yes, on my radar but nothing I can
> do about :/
>
> If you can direct me to a CF machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Jun 21 08:17:56 2017
New Revision: 249437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-21 Thomas Preud'homme
Revert:
Backpo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
w/o ubsan we fold this all the way to one. With ubsan we fold it as
bool a = -((long int) ~(x != 0) ^ 9223372036854775806) + -124 != 0;
so there's some stupid TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED check in the way so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Tomorrow, unless Marek beats me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
>
> --- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
> I have not yet built a native i686 compiler with 64bit support but only
> tried a x86_64 -> i686 cross with 64bit support whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81142
tomas_paukrt at conel dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.4, 5.4.0, 6.3.0
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81140
--- Comment #1 from DB ---
Hm, in fact, I'm not sure the GCC/g++ docs ever address what happens when a
declared non-volatile object is accessed through a volatile-qualified
reference/pointer, which by my understanding is the crux of the NB issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81140
DB changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81134
--- Comment #2 from Manish ---
Thanx Jonathan.
Your explanation explains behavior. I wonder if standard has some preference
dictated here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81092
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 21 08:55:26 2017
New Revision: 249438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249438&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81092 Regenerate configure for libtool_VERSION change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81092
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 21 08:55:52 2017
New Revision: 249439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81092 Regenerate configure for libtool_VERSION change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78480
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81092
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81134
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard seems clear to me and GCC's behaviour is correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81134
--- Comment #4 from Manish ---
Which section in particular you are referring?
I am looking at this doc, section 14.7 but couldn't find relevant point.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3690.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #49 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #47 from Daniel Santos ---
[...]
> I'm sorry for the delay again. I've been having some health problems
> infringing upon my hacking time.
No worries at all: don't even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
> I have not yet built a native i686 compiler with 64bit support but only
> tried a x86_64 -> i686 cross with 64bit support whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81149
Bug ID: 81149
Summary: [8 Regression] profiledbootstrap failed with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81149
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81149
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81133
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81130
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 21 10:58:00 2017
New Revision: 249445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81130
* gimplify.c (omp_add_variable): Don't force
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81150
Bug ID: 81150
Summary: [8 Regression] GCC is miscompiled with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81133
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81142
--- Comment #6 from tomas_paukrt at conel dot cz ---
Created attachment 41595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41595&action=edit
C source file without snprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81150
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81142
--- Comment #7 from tomas_paukrt at conel dot cz ---
I attached another C source file that is even simpler.
Compiled program causes segmentation fault on AM335X (Cortex-A8) as well as on
SPEAr320S-2 (ARM926EJ-S).
Using option -ftls-model=initial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70184
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
--- Comment #11 from Ramana R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81125
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Still fails on darwin
/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr81125.C: In constructor 'A::A(long
int)':
/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr81125.C:19:14: internal compiler
error: in mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81151
Bug ID: 81151
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized in insn-emit.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81151
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2017-6-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
--- Comment #13 from Jon Grant ---
May be simpler to just implement these static analysis checkers outside of a
compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81134
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
To determine the type of the conditional expression it's necessary to know the
types of both GCD::value and GCD::value, which requires
instantiating both of GCD and GCD, which triggers the infinite
recursio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81152
Bug ID: 81152
Summary: False strict-aliasing warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81151
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81151
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81138
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81152
--- Comment #1 from Lasse Reinhold ---
Created attachment 41598
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41598&action=edit
Non-stack overflowing version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79489
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jun 21 12:51:46 2017
New Revision: 249450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249450&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make early return predictor more precise.
2017-06-21 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81153
Bug ID: 81153
Summary: Incorrect annotation causes an internal compiler error
at tree-ssanames.c line 375
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81153
--- Comment #1 from ernst.vanveenendaal at prismtech dot com ---
Created attachment 41600
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41600&action=edit
reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81153
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I fixed this in r247586 but seems I never backported the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81153
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80612
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ernst.vanveenendaal@prismte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67074
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12944
Bug 12944 depends on bug 67074, which changed state.
Bug 67074 Summary: Name lookup ambiguity between namespace and its alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67074
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81154
Bug ID: 81154
Summary: OpenMP with shared variable in a template class crash
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81154
mplaneta at os dot inf.tu-dresden.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mplaneta at os dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jon Grant from comment #13)
> May be simpler to just implement these static analysis checkers outside of a
> compiler.
Or as a plugin to GCC (so that it reuses GCC internals) that is stor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with
commit 69693ea7b7ed45a12cbd505b2a66257fd4e81669
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 26 10:59:27 2015 +
2015-06-26 Richard Biener
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Remove -A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
It's the
(flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_SI_OVERFLOW) == 0
check in fold_negate_expr_1 that makes the difference w/ and w/o ubsan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81152
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
--- Comment #15 from Jon Grant ---
I saw Bjarne Stroustrup announced C++ Core Guidelines, as a gitproject which
includes a checker. At least it would all be in one place as a project.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81155
Bug ID: 81155
Summary: Debug make check regressions in GCC 8.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
We basically have
-123 - (LONG_MIN + 1)
but it's being folded to
-LONG_MIN + -124
which is of course not correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81136
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81150
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81037
--- Comment #5 from Mike Stump ---
Fixed in 6.4. Leaving open for 5 backports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81037
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81154
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
--- Comment #3 from Mike Stump ---
I've been avoiding this bug for years by just removing the unwind.h header.
:-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81156
Bug ID: 81156
Summary: GCC fails to compile a formula with tgmath.h
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
So were in "associate:", where
lit0 = -123
lit1 = -1
which is associated to
lit0 = -124
and
var0 = null
var1 = -((long int) ~(x != 0) ^ 9223372036854775806)
which is associated to
var0 = -((long int) ~(x != 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81157
Bug ID: 81157
Summary: If constexpr does not support Short-circuit evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80718
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 21 18:02:37 2017
New Revision: 249466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-06-21 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68163
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 21 18:02:37 2017
New Revision: 249466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-06-21 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80510
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 21 18:02:37 2017
New Revision: 249466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-06-21 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80718
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68163
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81158
Bug ID: 81158
Summary: [8 regression] Many test case failures starting with
r249424
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81154
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 21 18:30:32 2017
New Revision: 249467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81154
* semantics.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1, f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81094
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
--- Comment #16 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #14)
> But the main barrier for this is not technical or acceptance, it is
> leadership and human resources.
And the usual time and money. There are plenty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78918
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78918
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81133
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
Bug ID: 81159
Summary: New warning idea: -Wself-move
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81160
Bug ID: 81160
Summary: arith.c:2009: bad statement order ?
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81161
Bug ID: 81161
Summary: poor code concatenating bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81160
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't think the current implementation of the warning is prone to false
positives so it seems that it could safely be included it in -Wall.
Unfortunately, the overly simplistic implementation makes it prone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80675
--- Comment #2 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Wed Jun 21 19:53:26 2017
New Revision: 249468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80675, PR libstdc++/80940
* include/std/istream:
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80940
--- Comment #2 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Wed Jun 21 19:53:26 2017
New Revision: 249468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80675, PR libstdc++/80940
* include/std/istream:
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81151
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 21 20:02:00 2017
New Revision: 249469
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249469&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81151
* config/i386/sse.md (round2): Renumber ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66639
Michael Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at jonesmz dot com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81161
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||18041
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81161
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041#c7 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80510
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 21 21:08:40 2017
New Revision: 249470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-21 Michael Meissner
PR target/80510
* gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80940
--- Comment #3 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Wed Jun 21 21:09:46 2017
New Revision: 249471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80675, PR libstdc++/80940
Backport from mainline
2
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
