[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT & ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514 --- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-29 06:58:24 UTC --- About run time checking: I believe the bit size of k is known at compile time, and the overhead to check n against it is negligible as compared to computing ishft itself and maybe n.

[Bug c++/41796] ambiguous subobject diagnostic given too early

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796 --- Comment #11 from Johannes Schaub 2011-09-29 06:14:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Excellent, then could you possibly comment on the implication for this PR? > > (for > > you it's easy, I'm sure) > ... > P

[Bug c++/41796] ambiguous subobject diagnostic given too early

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796 --- Comment #10 from Johannes Schaub 2011-09-29 06:10:26 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Excellent, then could you possibly comment on the implication for this PR? > (for > you it's easy, I'm sure) Hi, wanna chime in here. It has no implicat

[Bug testsuite/48402] autogen fixincludes in GCC 4.6.0 testsuite fails on OS X 10.6.7

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48402 --- Comment #3 from Stuart Ambler 2011-09-29 05:02:34 UTC --- Verified fix as follows. After fresh de-tar of gcc-core, g++, objc, testsuite-4.6.1.tar.g, edit gcc-4.6.1/fixincludes/inclhack.def according to Cheng Sheng's comment, also edit same d

[Bug c++/47346] access control for nested type is ignored in class template

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot

[Bug c++/39859] duplicated and unhelpful error for "c:n" (parser)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39859 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/41725] g++ accepts compounded unnamed type in template (violates 14.3.1-2)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41725 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/35153] [C++0x] Taking address of result of calling function returning rvalue reference should not compile.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35153 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/37653] Duplicate messages and warnings depending on the program

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37653 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/38873] boost 1.37.0 fails to compile comp_ellint_1l.cpp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38873 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/38963] massive failures during 'make -k test' in 'libmudflap'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38963 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/39462] check assert() at compile time if possible

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39462 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/39679] Some absent attributes in the tree-dump should be added

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39679 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot

[Bug debug/49750] -gdwarf-4 bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49750 --- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil 2011-09-28 23:44:50 UTC --- -fdebug-types-section unidentifiable anonymous struct (PR debug/49750) http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-09/msg00356.html

[Bug c++/40145] structure inside a static function is exported, producing warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40145 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/40145] structure inside a static function is exported, producing warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40145 --- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 23:14:07 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Wed Sep 28 23:14:04 2011 New Revision: 179323 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179323 Log: 2011-09-28 Paolo Carlini PR c++/

[Bug c++/44473] iterators already defined for std::vector when using std::decimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473 --- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 23:08:13 UTC --- Great. Make sure to add Jason in CC for faster feedback.

[Bug c++/44473] iterators already defined for std::vector when using std::decimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473 --- Comment #11 from Janis Johnson 2011-09-28 23:04:13 UTC --- There's a patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00625.html approved here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01208.html Apparently I never checke

[Bug c++/41596] handling of library-related options by g++spec.c causes a failure when generating pch.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41596 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-

[Bug c++/41804] testsuite breaks with DejaGnu messages

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41804 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/43275] unclear error message for missing typename

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43275 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|manu at gcc d

[Bug c++/43361] missing uninitialized warning without optimization (loop representation)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/44263] missing diagnostic on questionable array sizes with -pedantic

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44263 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle dot

[Bug c++/44473] iterators already defined for std::vector when using std::decimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot | |gnu.org, jason at gcc

[Bug c++/45278] -Wextra doesn't warn about (pointer < 0 ).

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/45278] -Wextra doesn't warn about (pointer < 0 ).

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 22:04:51 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Wed Sep 28 22:04:48 2011 New Revision: 179321 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179321 Log: /cp 2011-09-28 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/38980] missing -Wformat warning on const char format string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38980 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 f

[Bug c++/40056] implicit instantiation of function templates fails with -O2, works with -O and -g...

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/41796] ambiguous subobject diagnostic given too early

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 21:48:08 UTC --- Excellent, then could you possibly comment on the implication for this PR? (for you it's easy, I'm sure)

[Bug bootstrap/49486] [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49486 --- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-09-28 21:43:06 UTC --- Author: kkojima Date: Wed Sep 28 21:43:01 2011 New Revision: 179320 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179320 Log: PR target/49486 * config/sh/sh.md (negd

[Bug fortran/50547] dummy procedure argument of PURE shall be PURE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:40:30 UTC --- This patch causes one testsuite failure on elemental_args_check_2.f90, due to a slightly changed error message.

[Bug c++/41796] ambiguous subobject diagnostic given too early

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler 2011-09-28 21:36:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > What happened to issue Core/983? It was originally accepted but later found out to be the wrong solution, therefore it became fixed again by CWG 1121.

[Bug c++/41431] &main should be allowed within unevaluated operands.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41431 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/41796] ambiguous subobject diagnostic given too early

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug fortran/50553] statement function cannot be target (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:28:59 UTC --- The patch regtests cleanly. I'm going to commit as obvious.

[Bug c++/41725] g++ accepts compounded unnamed type in template (violates 14.3.1-2)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41725 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 f

[Bug other/50562] New: configure: --without-newlib does not disable libgloss

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50562 Bug #: 50562 Summary: configure: --without-newlib does not disable libgloss Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/42356] confused compiler

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-

[Bug c++/27527] invalid types produced out of argument deduction (SFINAE bug)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27527 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 21:09:59 UTC --- Thanks, the "usual" misinterpretation, in other terms (honestly, in this specific case I didn't look at the actual code closely enough to even try to figure out myself).

[Bug middle-end/50561] [4.7 regression] ICE when compiling zlib with -O2 -floop-flatten -floop-strip-mine

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561 Matt Hargett changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major

[Bug middle-end/50561] [4.7 regression] ICE when compiling zlib with -O2 -floop-flatten -floop-strip-mine

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561 --- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett 2011-09-28 20:59:07 UTC --- Created attachment 25378 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25378 pre-processed source of the file that triggers the ICE

[Bug middle-end/50561] New: [4.7 regression] ICE when compiling zlib with -O2 -floop-flatten -floop-strip-mine

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561 Bug #: 50561 Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE when compiling zlib with -O2 -floop-flatten -floop-strip-mine Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Stat

[Bug c++/45278] -Wextra doesn't warn about (pointer < 0 ).

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug fortran/50553] statement function cannot be target (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Keywords|

[Bug c++/48420] Missed -Wconversion-null warning when passing const bool to T*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48420 --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 20:05:32 UTC --- Oops, sorry, got confused, in C++0x it's an hard error. Uhmmm.

[Bug c++/48420] Missed -Wconversion-null warning when passing const bool to T*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48420 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/50550] does not recognize pointer variable at initialization (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT & ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-09-28 19:45:48 UTC --- On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:20:40AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514 > > --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-28 > 09:20:

[Bug bootstrap/50543] Bootstrap fails to build for latest 4.6

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543 --- Comment #7 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-09-28 19:42:52 UTC --- Anybody but me and Evgeny can confirm that? I've tried really general path of build it and got fail to compare different stages...

[Bug web/50297] Bugzilla suffers a taint issue when viewing bug 48333 while being logged out

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297 Frédéric Buclin changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Bugzilla suffers an |Bugzilla suffers a taint

[Bug c++/50560] g++ optimization -O3 is removing symbols from templates

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560 --- Comment #3 from Mark 2011-09-28 19:38:05 UTC --- Thanks for the quick response. Your solution works.

[Bug c++/49913] ICE from -O2 -fgraphite-identity : extract_range_from_binary_expr, at tree-vrp.c:2318

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49913 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/27527] invalid types produced out of argument deduction (SFINAE bug)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27527 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/50547] dummy procedure argument of PURE shall be PURE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Keywords|

[Bug web/50297] Bugzilla suffers an internal error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297 --- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-09-28 19:19:28 UTC --- This is totally crazy. Perl complains that the attachment ID is tainted if you are logged out, but not if you are logged in. And the error comes right *after* a call to detaint_natur

[Bug c++/50560] g++ optimization -O3 is removing symbols from templates

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28 18:37:37 UTC --- your hack to allow "separately compiled template components" isn't valid C++, but you can make the code valid by putting an explicit instantiation declaration in the header: extern

[Bug c++/50560] g++ optimization -O3 is removing symbols from templates

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug web/50297] Bugzilla suffers an internal error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297 --- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-09-28 18:28:31 UTC --- I just enabled Bugzilla debug mode, and the relevant error is: undef error - Insecure dependency in parameter 3 of DBI::db=HASH(0xb097df4)->selectrow_hashref method call while runni

[Bug c++/48536] [C++0x] Automatic Enumerator Incrementation is not compliant with Clause 7.2/5

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48536 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dnetserrspam at gmail dot

[Bug c++/50559] g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/50560] New: g++ optimization -O3 is removing symbols from templates

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560 Bug #: 50560 Summary: g++ optimization -O3 is removing symbols from templates Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug c++/50559] g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28 18:21:52 UTC --- probably related to PR 48536

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-28 18:03:50 UTC --- It is fixed by revision 172430: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg00625.html

[Bug web/50297] Bugzilla suffers an internal error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297 Frédéric Buclin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/50559] g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-28 17:56:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Reduced testcase: > > Just to be sure: Is this testcase rejected? If so, this seems in violation to > the C++(03) standard base

[Bug c++/50559] g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug c++/48914] #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wc++0x-compat" doesn't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914 --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 17:34:44 UTC --- So far have been able to figure out that diagnostic_classify_diagnostic apparently sets correctly context->n_classification_history to 1 when the pragma is parsed, but then is found ==

[Bug c++/50559] g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-28 17:27:41 UTC --- Reduced testcase: typedef enum ColorTag { RED = 2147483647, GREEN, BLUE } Color; int main() { Color x = GREEN; return 0; }

[Bug c++/50559] g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-28 17:27:25 UTC --- Hmm, it does not ICE on the trunk.

[Bug c++/50559] g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 --- Comment #1 from dnetserrspam at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 17:24:18 UTC --- When g++ compiles the attached code it complains (correctly) that the value for GREEN overflows. Then it reports that it is confused by earlier errors and bails out.

[Bug c++/50559] New: g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559 Bug #: 50559 Summary: g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration value Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.4.5 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/49126] timevar_stack faild because define_label

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49126 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/47749] Wrong function return value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749 --- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 16:23:40 UTC --- Of course if Davide could try something more recent than 4.4.4, it would be useful. Note that on Linux even current 4.4 branch is Ok.

[Bug c++/47749] Wrong function return value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749 --- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 16:13:33 UTC --- Ok, thanks Jonathan. Thus, let's see first if somebody can actually reproduce the issue!

[Bug c++/47749] Wrong function return value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28 16:05:21 UTC --- To answer your specific question, flowing isn't defined, neither is "the flow of control", but my reading is it means at runtime, for the reasons in my previous comment. If the comp

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 16:02:05 UTC --- HJ, I think the correct output, showing that we are *not* miscompiling or something is: (-0.0,-1.0)x100.0=(-0.0,-100.0) exactly what you are seeing. The problem is, with 4.6 we get:

[Bug c++/47749] Wrong function return value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28 16:01:45 UTC --- FWIW, the reflector thread starting with c++std-core-12400 has lots of rationale why a diagnostic isn't required. One reason is C compatibility as it's only undefined in C if the r

[Bug ada/50558] Legal program rejected (record component with no supplied value) and invalid access to atomic variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558 --- Comment #3 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov 2011-09-28 15:58:00 UTC --- After reading Ada 2005 rationale I think that the program in attachment 25374 is valid (components with no default values should be left undefined) and the other one is invalid

[Bug c++/47749] Wrong function return value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED Ever Confirmed|1

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-28 15:54:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > With the -O2 flag and in a very specialized circumstance, the product of a > complex and a double has the wrong sign. > > The problem arises when the blitz++ arra

[Bug c++/47749] Wrong function return value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28 15:41:27 UTC --- Yep, [stmt.return]/2 "Flowing off the end of a function is equivalent to a return with no value; this results in undefined behavior in a value-returning function."

[Bug c++/47749] Wrong function return value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 15:35:22 UTC --- First blush, I would say this is malformed code, even if we produce "only" a warning with -Wreturn-type. And after all we produce only a warning also for false substituted to flag in t

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #122 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28 15:34:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #120) > Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct > define > if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and keeping the old behavior for -

[Bug bootstrap/50543] Bootstrap fails to build for latest 4.6

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543 Stupachenko Evgeny changed: What|Removed |Added CC||evstupac at gmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com Seve

[Bug fortran/50541] gfortran should not accept a pointer as a generic-name (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 20

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #121 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-28 14:20:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #120) > Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct > define > if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and keeping the old behavior for -std=

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #120 from Ruben Van Boxem 2011-09-28 13:58:03 UTC --- OK, somewhat understandable to keep evil legacy code compiling. Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct define if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and

[Bug ada/50558] Illegal program not detected (record component with no supplied value) and invalid access to atomic variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558 --- Comment #2 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov 2011-09-28 13:51:43 UTC --- Output with -gnatG looks different for two programs. For good.ada: with pkg; procedure test is begin T1b : pkg__data_record := ( data => 255); pkg.pkg__data_regi

[Bug middle-end/50460] [4.7 Regression] __builtin___strcpy_chk/__builtin_object_size don't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/50460] [4.7 Regression] __builtin___strcpy_chk/__builtin_object_size don't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460 --- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-28 13:47:16 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed Sep 28 13:47:12 2011 New Revision: 179313 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179313 Log: 2011-09-28 Richard Guenther PR middle-

[Bug lto/45375] [meta-bug] Issues with building Mozilla with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 --- Comment #112 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-28 13:33:03 UTC --- OK, the problem turns out to be configure issue. Configure script greps asm output and with slim LTO it does not find there what it expects disabling hidden visibilities. No surprise

[Bug ada/50558] Illegal program not detected (record component with no supplied value) and invalid access to atomic variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558 --- Comment #1 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov 2011-09-28 13:08:48 UTC --- Created attachment 25375 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25375 Invalid program correctly detected This is test program with definition of Data_Register mov

[Bug ada/50558] New: Illegal program not detected (record component with no supplied value) and invalid access to atomic variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558 Bug #: 50558 Summary: Illegal program not detected (record component with no supplied value) and invalid access to atomic variable Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Versi

[Bug lto/47247] Linker plugin specification makes it difficult to handle COMDATs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247 --- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-28 12:38:29 UTC --- Thanks for gold support. GCC support is now posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01818.html We miss the GNU LD variant http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #119 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28 12:23:51 UTC --- If you ask me, no way.

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #118 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28 12:21:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #117) > Any chance of this being backported to older branches? Seems quite useful for > the future. I don't think this (very good, but quite major) change qual

[Bug middle-end/50460] [4.7 Regression] __builtin___strcpy_chk/__builtin_object_size don't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #7 from Richard

  1   2   >