[Bug c++/21675] New: -fvisibility : misleading documentation and low QoI

The -fvisibility documentation talks about declarations when explaining where to put __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))). However, compiling this code: class __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) Foo; class Foo {}; produces a warning: warning: type attributes are honored only at type def

[Bug libgcj/19877] sometimes reconfiguring leads to incorrect config.h

--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20 03:30 --- I'm testing a fix. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tr

[Bug libstdc++/21674] New: basic_string vs debug_mode

Just to keep track of this tough issue, discussed in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00192.html In a nutshell, this testcase doesn't assert and should: #define _GLIBCXX_DEBUG #include int main() { std::string s; s[1]; } (change std::string to s

[Bug other/21669] [4.1 Regression] unwind.h uses gcc_unreachable

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20 01:06 --- Fixed by: 2005-05-19 Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * unwind.h, unwind-pe.h: Revert gcc_unreachable change of 05-17. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug fortran/21673] gfortran binary file format

--- Additional Comments From blime at cox dot net 2005-05-20 00:58 --- Subject: Re: gfortran binary file format Thanks for pointing me to the background. I searched, but used the wrong words. I also recall something about 32 bit initial implementation for gfortran in gcc-4.0, and a r

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-20 00:15 --- Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #9) | > And we can construct more. But it does not rule out the

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-20 00:12 --- Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression "igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | In particular, once you get all the template armwaving out of it: | | int& foo(int i) {

[Bug fortran/21673] gfortran binary file format

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 23:55 --- Try looking at: . The record size is 64bit on all targets now unlike in g77 so it is binary compatiable to g77 on 64bit targets. -- Wha

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-05-19 23:54 --- So the bug should be changed to "valid, verified, already fixed, won't back port"? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21672

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 23:46 --- (In reply to comment #12) > In particular, once you get all the template armwaving out of it: > > int& foo(int i) { return i; } > > should warn and does not. The following example does not warn before 4.0

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-05-19 23:42 --- In particular, once you get all the template armwaving out of it: int& foo(int i) { return i; } should warn and does not. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 23:42 --- (In reply to comment #9) > And we can construct more. But it does not rule out the fact that we > should handle the simple cases. Also if you read comment #4, the simple cases are already handled. -- h

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 23:40 --- (In reply to comment #9) > And we can construct more. But it does not rule out the fact that we > should handle the simple cases. What assuming |= returns *this, that is just wrong and you know it, if the

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-19 23:35 --- Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Here is another example where we don't know for sure it shows how the compiler uses

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-19 23:31 --- Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 23:19 --

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-19 23:27 --- Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression "igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Yes, the friend function is returning a reference to its own argument, though | that seem

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 23:21 --- Here is another example where we don't know for sure it shows how the compiler uses operators in C++: template const T& g(T t1, const T& t2) { return t1.h(t2); } struct f{ f &h(const f&);}; f i; f j; f

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 23:19 --- (In reply to comment #4) > but apparently the warning logic overlooks the same problem when returning > arguments. Actually it cannot know and here is why, take the following example: template const T& ope

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-05-19 23:11 --- Yes, the friend function is returning a reference to its own argument, though that seems to disappear as the body gets inlined in *most* cases :-) So please reopen this as a "missing warning" bug. In most cases

[Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test

--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-05-19 23:10 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test > > I have no idea why it would only fail at -O0 though, the .original dump on > > i586-linux looks fine, and there's nothing strongl

[Bug fortran/21673] New: gfortran binary file format

The way the binary record length is encoded appears to be changed from g77 to gfortran. 1. Compatibility between gcc-3.x.x - g77 and gcc-4.0 - gfortran -- not compatible and not a big problem, but don't know why it should change 2. Compatibility between gcc-3.x.x - cpp and g77

[Bug java/19870] gcj -C doesn't generate accessors for private members in inner class

--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:57 --- I note that GCJ already seems to have the infrastructure in place to do this and possibly used to work properly for this case. For example, see the build_outer_field_access(), outer_field_access_p(), etc. me

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:56 --- Not a bug because: friend const T& operator |(T t1, const T& t2) { return t1 |= t2; } is being invoked, this comes from: template class logicalMixin { -- What|Removed

[Bug target/21671] Returning result of long long multiply from function clobbers lower 32 bits

-- What|Removed |Added CC||schwab at suse dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21671

[Bug libfortran/21127] reshape of complex broken

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21127

[Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:28 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Does this also fail on 4.1 (which has the initialization fixes in)? Yes as of last night at least. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test

--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:22 --- (In reply to comment #3) > I have no idea why it would only fail at -O0 though, the .original dump on > i586-linux looks fine, and there's nothing strongly system specific in it. This may be due to an unin

[Bug fortran/20923] Compile time is high for the following code

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:19 --- One more thing I forgot to mention: for n = 100 the .original dump looks like this: int4 offset.1; struct array1_int4 atmp.0; atmp.0.dtype = 265; atmp.0.dim[0].stride = 1; atmp.0.dim[0].lb

[Bug fortran/20923] Compile time is high for the following code

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:14 --- ugh, it is quadratic, only the inner array constructor gets expanded. And this is where the <= 100 restriction I alluded to above comes in. For n = 100 the relevant line from the -fdump-parse-tree output looks

[Bug libfortran/21127] reshape of complex broken

--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:10 --- Fixed on mainline and 4.0. There are still some reshape bugs in 4.0 which are not specific to complex numbers, and whose fixes need to be backported. -- What|Removed |Ad

[Bug fortran/20923] Compile time is high for the following code

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:09 --- The time behavior is strictly linear BTW: n = 100: real0m0.604s user0m0.485s sys 0m0.021s n = 1000: real1m0.860s user0m49.055s sys 0m0.078s (the array grows quadratically with n) One t

[Bug libfortran/21127] reshape of complex broken

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:07 --- Subject: Bug 21127 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-19 22:07:07 Modified files: libgfortran: Makefi

[Bug target/21671] Returning result of long long multiply from function clobbers lower 32 bits

-- What|Removed |Added Component|c |target Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

[Bug c/21666] Optimization level -O2 breaks float (double) conversion

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 21:34 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Subject: Re: Optimization level -O2 breaks float (double) conversion > > Dear Pinski and Co., > As a former compiler developer myself I was just trying to help, and I'm > sorry

[Bug other/21669] [4.1 Regression] unwind.h uses gcc_unreachable

-- What|Removed |Added CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-05-19 21:22 --- Created an attachment (id=8932) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8932&action=view) source code (compressed) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21672

[Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression

--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-05-19 21:22 --- Created an attachment (id=8931) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8931&action=view) compiler output -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21672

[Bug c++/21672] New: Loses temporary in complex expression

The attached source (and compiler output) produces the "testBitset" executable, which when run (no command line arguments) prints to std::cerr: ~/ootbc/common/test/src$ testBitset p is: bitset{a, c, e, g, k} q is: bitset{b:c, h, j:k} r is: bitset{a:c, e, g:h, j:k} but (p|q) is: bitset{d, f, h, j:

[Bug c/21671] New: Returning result of long long multiply from function clobbers lower 32 bits

m68k-unknown-elf-gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 Bug: long long multiply is broken when returning the result from a subroutine. When using -O3 or higher, the lower half of the 64 bit result is set to zero. This example works correctly with -O2. Do not compile ll.c and ll_test.c as one file. Test case 2 fails (2L

[Bug c++/21670] segv after error

--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-05-19 20:50 --- Created an attachment (id=8930) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8930&action=view) source code (compressed) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21670

[Bug c++/21670] segv after error

--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-05-19 20:49 --- Created an attachment (id=8929) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8929&action=view) compiler output -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21670

[Bug c++/21670] New: segv after error

-- Summary: segv after error Product: gcc Version: 3.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: igodard at pacbell dot ne

[Bug c/21666] Optimization level -O2 breaks float (double) conversion

--- Additional Comments From jbeitaharon at intrusic dot com 2005-05-19 20:43 --- Subject: Re: Optimization level -O2 breaks float (double) conversion Dear Pinskia and Co., As a former compiler developer myself I was just trying to help, and I'm sorry to tell you that your answer was

[Bug other/21669] New: [4.1 Regression] unwind.h uses gcc_unreachable

Between 20050517 and 20050519 the following failures appeared on ia64-hpux on mainline. FAIL: g++.dg/eh/forced1.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/eh/forced2.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/eh/forced3.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/eh/forced4.C (test for excess errors

[Bug java/17255] [meta-bug] Fixes should be back-ported to 3.4 branch

--- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2005-05-19 20:30 --- Yeah, its probably pointless backporting anything else this late in the 3.4 cycle, especially now that 4.0 is out. I'm closing the PR. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/21653] [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/vect failures

--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 20:27 --- The following failures appeared on ia64-hpux between 20050517 and 20050519 (on 20050518 there was a bootstrap failure) and appear to be the same bug. FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c (test for excess

[Bug c/21664] array-of-empty-structure extension not properly defined

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 20:20 --- None. But I have to deal with the possibilities of these during folding of &a[2] == &a[1]. At least until the middle-end makes a promise that they cannot exist (which they do), or the C frontend rejects th

[Bug tree-optimization/21653] [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/vect failures

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2005-05-19 20:18 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/vect failures > --- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 > 19:06 --- > The ICE shows up on powerpc-linux with

[Bug c/21668] New: gratuitous warning about "extern const" with initializer

gcc spits a warning on the following snippet: % cat const-extern.c && gcc -c const-extern.c extern const int foo = 200; const-extern.c:1: warning: 'foo' initialized and declared 'extern' Notice that the code snippet is a well-defined construct at the intersection of both C and C++, and act

[Bug c++/21667] New: misleading warning about array subscription

GCC (g++) emits a warning (-Wall) for the following code % cat ary.C && g++ -Wall ary.C int main() { int ary[256] = { 0 }; return ary['a']; } ary.C: In function 'int main()': ary.C:4: warning: array subscript has type 'char' The diagnostic is not helpful because

[Bug c/21664] array-of-empty-structure extension not properly defined

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-19 19:45 --- Subject: Re: New: array-of-empty-structure extension not properly defined "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | For | | struct {} a[4]; int main() { return &a[2] - &a[1]; }

Re: [Bug c/21664] New: array-of-empty-structure extension not properly defined

"rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | For | | struct {} a[4]; int main() { return &a[2] - &a[1]; } | | the C frontend emits | | return 0 /[ex] 0; | | which will, at -O0 fault at runtime, at -O not due to RTL CSE. | | Is this even well-defined? No, as you noted belo

[Bug fortran/20900] use-associated variable may not be equivalenced

--- Additional Comments From Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2005-05-19 19:22 --- Subject: Re: use-associated variable may not be equivalenced jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote: > --- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-05-19 17:54 > ---

[Bug libstdc++/19664] libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around the declarations

--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-19 19:21 --- Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around the declarations bernie at develer dot com wrote: > It's not a regresion, but it causes KDE to miscompile > with GCC 4.0.0. Cou

[Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 19:16 --- It has never worked on HP-UX at least, see here, e.g.: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-05/msg00134.html I have no idea why it would only fail at -O0 though, the .original dump on i586-linux looks fi

[Bug c/21666] Optimization level -O2 breaks float (double) conversion

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 19:15 --- You are violating C aliasing rules: ((long *) &s)[0] = __extension__ ({ register u_long __X = (nt.li[1]); __asm ("xchgb %h1, %b1\n\trorl $16, %1\n\txchgb %h1, %b1" : "=q" (__X) : "0" (__X)); __X; }); s is a

[Bug tree-optimization/21653] [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/vect failures

--- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 19:06 --- The ICE shows up on powerpc-linux with this patch from rakdver: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00814.html -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c/21666] New: Optimization level -O2 breaks float (double) conversion

the exact version of GCC: gcc34 (GCC) 3.4.4 20050114 (prerelease) [FreeBSD] Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. (also tested with: gc

[Bug java/17255] [meta-bug] Fixes should be back-ported to 3.4 branch

--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 18:00 --- Bryce, are you planning to put any more fixes into 3.4.x? I know I'm not. I think we should just close this PR. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17255

[Bug fortran/20904] optional argument in specification expression

--- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-05-19 17:58 --- (In reply to comment #1) > I get this error: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ ~/src/gcc-new/build/gcc/f951 pr20904.f90 > In file pr20904.f90:3 > >character(len=arg) :: s > 1 > Error: Dummy argum

[Bug fortran/20900] use-associated variable may not be equivalenced

--- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-05-19 17:54 --- (In reply to comment #1) > There's no 11.7 neither in the F95 nor the F2K drafts I'm having. This is > invalid by the constraints in 5.5.1 in the F95 draft. Is there any other > constraint you were aiming at?

[Bug fortran/20923] Compile time is high for the following code

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 17:41 --- Confirmed. This is because the array constructor is expanded at compile-time. If the constructor were used in an initialization we would abort, IIRC. -- What|Removed |Adde

[Bug fortran/20904] optional argument in specification expression

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 17:38 --- I get this error: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ ~/src/gcc-new/build/gcc/f951 pr20904.f90 In file pr20904.f90:3 character(len=arg) :: s 1 Error: Dummy argument 'arg' at (1) cannot be OPTIONAL

[Bug fortran/20901] different intrinsic types in equivalence not detected

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||20405 nThis|| Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/20900] use-associated variable may not be equivalenced

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 17:34 --- There's no 11.7 neither in the F95 nor the F2K drafts I'm having. This is invalid by the constraints in 5.5.1 in the F95 draft. Is there any other constraint you were aiming at? -- What|Remov

[Bug fortran/20899] pure function may not modify common variable through equivalence

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||20405 nThis|| Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/20897] derived type name shall not be same as intrinsic type name

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 17:27 --- second constraint in 4.4.1 -- What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug target/15340] [3.3/3.4 Regression] GCC internal error in preprocessed C code

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15340

[Bug pch/14400] [pch] Cannot compile qt-x11-free-3.3.0

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14400

[Bug target/17279] [3.4 Regression] internal compiler error with 128 bit integers

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17279

[Bug c/21420] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Accepts writting to const via asm

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21420

[Bug target/18583] [3.4 Regression] error on valid code: const __attribute__((altivec(vector__))) doesn't work in arrays

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18583

[Bug tree-optimization/13000] [3.4 Regression] [unit-at-a-time] Using -O2 cannot detect missing return statement in a function

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13000

[Bug preprocessor/20077] [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC accepts macro definitions that fail a constraint

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20077

[Bug target/15231] [3.4 only] constant pool entries referring to nonexistent labels

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15231

[Bug c++/17655] [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE with using a C99 initializer in an if-condition

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17655

[Bug rtl-optimization/14944] [3.4 only] ICE when gcc reads *.gcda file of different version

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14944

[Bug other/15082] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Minor compilation problem for cross to Solaris 8

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15082

[Bug c++/18698] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Error message using "using" for code not using "using" ;-)

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18698

[Bug c++/16042] [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE with array assignment

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16042

[Bug c++/19253] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] bad error message / ICE for invalid template parameter

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19253

[Bug c++/20209] [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Missing warnings for "aggregate has a partly bracketed initializer"

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20209

[Bug preprocessor/19475] [3.3/3.4 Regression] missing whitespace after macro name in C90 or C++

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19475

[Bug libf2c/17725] [3.4 only] g77 libs installed in wrong directory

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17725

[Bug c++/20427] [3.4 Regression] 'new int [2] ()' not default initialized

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20427

[Bug c++/19762] [3.4 regression] ICE in invalid explicit instantiation of a destructor

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19762

[Bug libobjc/11572] [3.4 regression]: GNU libobjc no longer compiled on Darwin

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11572

[Bug rtl-optimization/21464] [3.4 Regression] wassembler code is not generated for uint64_t comparison with -O

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21464

[Bug libstdc++/13583] [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] __use_cache not threadsafe

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13583

[Bug c++/19809] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Multiple definitions of friend functions in template classes

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19809

[Bug c++/19884] [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE on explicit instantiation of a non-template constructor

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19884

[Bug bootstrap/18532] [3.4 Regression] libgcc.mk isn't parallel build safe for multilib

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18532

[Bug middle-end/19183] [3.4 Regression] ICE with -fPIC

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19183

[Bug rtl-optimization/17810] [3.4 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_local_live_at_start for arm-rtems, arm-linux

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17810

[Bug debug/20253] [3.4 regression]: Macro debug info broken due to lexer change

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20253

[Bug rtl-optimization/16613] [3.4/4.0 Regression] compile time regression, when adding cerr usage

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16613

[Bug c++/19764] [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE on explicit instantiation of a non-template destructor

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19764

[Bug c++/19441] [3.4 regression] Bad error message with invalid destructor declaration

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19441

[Bug rtl-optimization/17860] [3.4 only] Wrong generated code for loop with varying bound

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17860

[Bug c++/19397] [3.4 regression] ICE with invalid typedef

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19397

  1   2   3   >