http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
06:32:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:31:59 2011
New Revision: 173608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173608
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48611
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48611
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
06:32:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:31:59 2011
New Revision: 173608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173608
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48611
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48928
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48611
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
06:08:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:08:18 2011
New Revision: 173607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173607
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48611
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
06:08:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:08:18 2011
New Revision: 173607
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173607
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48611
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48928
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
06:05:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 06:05:20 2011
New Revision: 173606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173606
Log:
PR debug/48928
* dfp.c (decimal_to_decnumbe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-10
04:54:14 UTC ---
No, the return type should be deduced as const char *.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
Summary: [arm gcc] NEON: Stack pointer operations performed
even tho stack is not accessed at all in function.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
Summary: GCC fails to issue expected error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48861
Dillon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48863
--- Comment #2 from Dillon 2011-05-10 00:40:16
UTC ---
*** Bug 48861 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48863
--- Comment #3 from Dillon 2011-05-10 00:41:40
UTC ---
*** Bug 48862 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48862
Dillon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48921
--- Comment #3 from Arthur O'Dwyer
2011-05-10 00:02:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You're right. It no longer reproduces in revision 173589 (2011-05-09).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-09
23:52:04 UTC ---
4.5.3, 4.6 and mainline say:
44160.C: In lambda function:
44160.C:3:27: error: return-statement with a value, in function returning
'void' [-fpermissive]
Is it good enough?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48522
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-09 23:24:04 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 9 23:24:01 2011
New Revision: 173598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173598
Log:
2011-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48522
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48522
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-09 23:24:23 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 9 23:24:21 2011
New Revision: 173599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173599
Log:
2011-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48522
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48735
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48735
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-09 22:57:22 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 9 22:57:19 2011
New Revision: 173597
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173597
Log:
2011-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48735
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48745
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20039
--- Comment #5 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-09 20:56:33 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Mon May 9 20:56:29 2011
New Revision: 173592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173592
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2011-05-09 Fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34772
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48939
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-09
20:10:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> If I understand your proposal correctly, we'd get something more like:
>
> foo.C:blahblah: error: no matching function for call to foo
> foo.C:blahblah: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48744
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48737
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-09 19:34:29 UTC ---
Your code compiles on x86_64-*-freebsd with 4.6.1 20110509
and gcc version 4.7.0 20110509. There have only been a
handful of patches to the 4.6 branch since 20110325, but
it isn't clear if these should help. valgrind on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48744
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-09 19:24:53 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 9 19:24:50 2011
New Revision: 173590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173590
Log:
/cp
2011-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48737
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-09 19:24:53 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 9 19:24:50 2011
New Revision: 173590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173590
Log:
/cp
2011-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #14 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 19:20:49 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 07:16:49PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > foo.C:blahblah: error: no matching function for call to foo
> > foo.C:blahblah: note: can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #11 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 18:59:55 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 06:26:44PM +, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > The hackish way of doing this would be to notice during deduction that
> > substitution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
19:16:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
>
> This PR is really just to get *anything* printed, so just a basic "substition
> failed" with no mention of which template parameter failed would be en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
19:13:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
>
> foo.C:blahblah: error: no matching function for call to foo
> foo.C:blahblah: note: candidate is foo(blahblah)
> foo.c:blahblah: note: substitution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48939
Summary: ICE in code involving procedure pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48938
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in lto_wpa_write_files, at
lto/lto.c:1992 with -O -flto --param
lto-min-partition=1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48861
Summary: A Bug When Assembler Instructions with C Expression
Operands in arm-elf-gcc 4.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48937
Jacob Abel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48936
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48862
Summary: A Bug When Assembler Instructions with C Expression
Operands in arm-elf-gcc 4.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
18:01:37 UTC ---
Thanks, Fabien!
N.B. the svn commit message should be the ChangeLog entry (look at the svn log
for any file to see what's normally done)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-09
18:17:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The hackish way of doing this would be to notice during deduction that
> substitution of a function type failed, then go back and substitute piece-wise
> in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48907
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #21 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-09
18:16:06 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon May 9 18:16:04 2011
New Revision: 173587
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173587
Log:
One more POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED fix in me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48936
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-09
18:00:29 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 9 18:00:26 2011
New Revision: 173584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173584
Log:
PR c++/48936
* decl2.c (mark_used): Instant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48937
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48936
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48936
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-09
18:00:40 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 9 18:00:37 2011
New Revision: 173585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173585
Log:
PR c++/48936
* decl2.c (mark_used): Instant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48937
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
--- Comment #5 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-09 17:42:24 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Mon May 9 17:42:21 2011
New Revision: 173583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173583
Log:
Fix PR C++/48859
Added:
trunk/gcc/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34772
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-09
17:34:48 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 9 17:34:44 2011
New Revision: 173582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173582
Log:
PR c++/34772
* decl.c (initialize_local_va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48937
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
17:36:34 UTC ---
The difference is almost certainly due to 64-bit defaulting to -mfpmath=sse,
but 32-bit defaulting to -mfpmath=387
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48937
Summary: Discrepancy in computation between 32 and 64-bit
builds
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44643
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
16:28:51 UTC ---
The point of that example is that even clang's "substitution failed" could be
improved, because T is substituted successfully into the return type
"S1::type" but not into the paramet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
16:24:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Oops, no, that's a mistake, the parameter should be named 't'
template struct S1 { typedef char type; };
template
typename S1::type
foo(typena
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 16:10:51 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:08:05PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> template struct S1 { typedef char type; };
>
> template
> typename S1::type
> f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48936
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] sizeof template parm not
considered constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #5 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 15:38:14 UTC ---
Thanks for checking. I'll attempt to the make the patch do something
intelligent on at least the original testcase and this:
> template struct S1 { typedef char ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-09 15:38:25 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon May 9 15:38:21 2011
New Revision: 173574
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173574
Log:
2011-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48921
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-09
15:23:30 UTC ---
I think this is a dup of PR48822. Can you check if the bug still occurs
with a more current trunk? I can't reproduce it at least.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Leo Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barnes.leo at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48935
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48935
Summary: Name lookup error at enum class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48935
--- Comment #1 from Takeshi Watanabe
2011-05-09 14:02:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 24212
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24212
code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
14:05:06 UTC ---
Another example:
template struct S1 { typedef char type; };
template
typename S1::type
foo(typename S1::typo)
{ return t; }
char c = foo(1);
Here the return typ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48932
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-09 13:44:04 UTC ---
On Sun, 08 May 2011, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Appears to be fixed in 4.5 and 4.6.
Actually, bug is in 4.5.1 but not 4.5.3. The only relevant fix that
I see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #20 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-05-09
12:34:22 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon May 9 12:34:19 2011
New Revision: 173571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173571
Log:
Fix PR c++/48574
gcc/cp/
PR c++/48574
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48927
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #19 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-05-09
12:32:11 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon May 9 12:32:06 2011
New Revision: 173570
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173570
Log:
Fix PR c++/48574
gcc/cp/
PR c++/48574
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
12:18:12 UTC ---
That patch makes no difference for the example in this PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48927
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-09 12:11:31 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon May 9 12:11:25 2011
New Revision: 173568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173568
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/48927
* ira-conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
12:03:48 UTC ---
I forgot about that mail - I'll try the patch and get back to you, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 11:53:58 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:39:35AM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> int foo(int);
>
> template
> struct sfinae
> { };
>
> template<>
> struct sfinae
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
Summary: no rejection reason given for SFINAE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-09
11:01:44 UTC ---
The way tr1/cmath is currently implemented, roughly speaking *when* an overload
does not exist anyway an infinite recursion can happen. Thus, this is just a
QoI issue. But it's easy to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48930
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-09 10:55:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Indeed, C has no user-provided constructors, so it is an aggregate.
Jason, what about c1? It seems that it is default-initialized, which would want
to cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
10:57:06 UTC ---
They're in C++0x but I don't think they're in TR1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
--- Comment #4 from Joel Yliluoma 2011-05-09 10:51:28
UTC ---
There is, however, an asinh, a cbrt, a hypot etc. for complex types. I don't
know about standard, but mathematically they are well defined. (for example,
hypot(x,y) = sqrt(x*x + y*y),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
10:46:40 UTC ---
Yes, we should disable the TR1 math functions for anything that isn't integral
or floating point, because it happens with any non-integral, non-float type:
#include
struct Foo { }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48899
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton 2011-05-09 10:07:20
UTC ---
I have checked in a patch to initialise the iq2000_tune variable, thus
eliminating the warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48899
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton 2011-05-09 10:04:39
UTC ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon May 9 10:04:36 2011
New Revision: 173562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173562
Log:
PR target/48899
* config/iq2000/iq2000.opt (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
Summary: Infinite recursion in tr1/cmath functions with complex
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #64 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48913
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-09
09:48:19 UTC ---
LTO does indeed partition the program - but the process that does this
partitioning reads in (parts of) the whole program, thus this is usually
where we require arbitrary amounts of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48928
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 09:56:56 UTC ---
On Mon, 9 May 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Ugh, dfp is complete mess, in many places in the folder, middle-end and
> optimizers dconst{1,2,m1,half} are used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48913
Sven C. Dack changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48928
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46399
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48897
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
