https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65872
Bug ID: 65872
Summary: Multiple class prefixes in method implementation are
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65867
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65805
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
Bug ID: 65873
Summary: [5/6 Regression] Failure to inline always_inline
memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65870
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65872
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65869
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to David Stone from comment #8)
> I have changed my opinion on this and agree that warning levels are probably
> not the way to go. The two things from this that I do still want are
>
> -Weve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65874
Bug ID: 65874
Summary: [5.2 Regression] bootstrap comparison failure
(gcc/ira.o) on ia64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-04-22, at 12:40 PM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> this patch is more conservative:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.c b/gcc/gimplify.c
> index 7786e16..e23f510 100644
> --- a/gcc/gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61534
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 24 11:49:52 2015
New Revision: 222406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61534
* input.h (from_macro_expansion_at): Define.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65830
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 24 11:53:27 2015
New Revision: 222407
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222407&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/65830
* c-common.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Use OPT_Wshift
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65830
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
Manuel, you seem to want a -Wsuper-extra that you can use everyday (maybe with
a couple -Wno-*). What some other people want with -Weverything is a way to
discover what warnings are available in the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63357
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Apr 24 12:10:52 2015
New Revision: 222408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/63357
* c-common.c (warn_logical_operator): Warn if the op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63357
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
Bug ID: 65875
Summary: internal compiler error with gcc 5.1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
Mat Cross changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65876
Bug ID: 65876
Summary: [5/6 Regression] [C++11] ICE in
cxx_eval_call_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:1358
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65876
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 24 13:45:08 2015
New Revision: 222412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-24 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r222349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #11 from David Stone ---
If the warnings are so ridiculous that no one could possibly want them on, then
maybe we should remove them. Otherwise, I would want -Weverything and I can use
-Wno-warnings-I-do-not-want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65802
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 24 14:18:57 2015
New Revision: 222413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Replace g++.dg/pr65802.C with gcc.dg/pr65802.c
2015-04-24 Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Stone from comment #11)
> If the warnings are so ridiculous that no one could possibly want them on,
> then maybe we should remove them.
No because there's a difference between somethin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65877
Bug ID: 65877
Summary: ICE: various internal errors with attribute(target)
when mixing generic and non-generic vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65878
Bug ID: 65878
Summary: parse error in template argument list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61907
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Same behaviour in 4.9.2 in trans-array.c line 2206
typespec_chararray_ctor = (expr->ts.u.cl &&
expr->ts.u.cl->length_from_typespec);
It seems length_from_typespec is wrong,
OR the sanitizer -fsanitize=unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #9)
> This patch has the following new failure:
>
> /test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr65802.C: In function 'void fn1()':
> /test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65879
Bug ID: 65879
Summary: Bogus linkage errors for member class of anonymous
class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65878
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61908
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I still have the same runtime error message in 4.9.2
Trying compilation of
!from unlimited_polymorphic_16.f90
!../../gcc-4.9.2/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2667:43: runtime error: load of value
1818451807, whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65849
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Apr 24 17:24:05 2015
New Revision: 222417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-24 Michael Meissner
PR target/65849
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58233
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still there on 4.9.2 at trans-expr.c:6193
if (!c->expr || (cm->attr.allocatable && cm->attr.flavor != FL_PROCEDURE))
/home/vitti/gcc-4.9.2-sanitize/test/f951 p.f
MAIN__
p.f:1:0: internal compiler error: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65880
Bug ID: 65880
Summary: Member function issue with argument "pointer to const
array of member function pointers"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35354|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 24 19:11:45 2015
New Revision: 222419
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222419&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/50800
gcc/
* tree.c (build_reference_type_for_mode): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65852
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65849
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Apr 24 20:03:13 2015
New Revision: 222421
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222421&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-24 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 24 20:17:10 2015
New Revision: 222423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-24 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r222349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bootstrap and reg-test on x86_64 also went ok for for the updated patch. I'll
submit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 24 20:53:28 2015
New Revision: 222426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/50800
* g++.dg/ext/alias-canon2.C: Remove clashing fn defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26190
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26190
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson ---
This ior/shift/xor optimization be done during combine with a simplify-rtx.c
patch. I wrote a prototype and tested it. Combine canonicalizes shift/logical
as logical/shift, so we actually have to look for ior/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65616
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 24 22:08:18 2015
New Revision: 222430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65616
libgo: Compile go-main, in libgobegin, with -fPIC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65616
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 24 22:08:32 2015
New Revision: 222431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65616
libgo: Compile go-main, in libgobegin, with -fPIC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65849
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Apr 24 23:44:41 2015
New Revision: 222433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-24 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline
2015-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65849
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Apr 24 23:48:54 2015
New Revision: 222434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222434&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-24 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline
2015-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65616
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65869
--- Comment #4 from Botond Ballo ---
> - The second overload resolution fails, because the only
> candidate (again, the explicit constructors are not
> candidates) has an rvalue reference parameter, which
> cannot bind to the lvalue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
gfortran currently does this with default formatting, list directed outout:
-
( 1., 0.) ( -1.0002E-25, 0.)
( -1.0002E-25, 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
IFORT does this:
-
(1.00,0.000E+00) (-1.000E-25,0.000E+00)
(-1.000E-25,0.000E+00) (1.00,0.000E+00)
(-3.499E-24,-3.499E-24) (-4.200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65855
--- Comment #2 from Shawn Landden ---
Created attachment 35399
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35399&action=edit
triange, 64-bit version
This can also work with 128-bit multiple of course as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65881
Bug ID: 65881
Summary: no documentation of __uint128_t
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
--- Comment #1 from James Almer ---
The same apparently happens with bextr, blsi, blsr, and most (if not all) of
AMD's tbm instructions. They set the ZF flag but gcc still generates a test
instruction.
http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/BEXTR.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65881
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Shawn Landden from comment #0)
> gcc on x86_64 recognizes __uint128_t, but this is not documented along with
> __int128, also there is no warning when a target does not support
> __uint128_t, like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65880
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65879
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
65 matches
Mail list logo
