: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: d...@gcc.gnu.org
20120131 trunk, configured with
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-mode=thumb
--build=arm-linux-gnueabihf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52075
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp, wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
gee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||51901
--- Comment #18 from gee 2012-02-01 05:20:53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01
03:17:08 UTC ---
Iain,
I bet your patch will fix PR 50308. The issue seems similar in that one of
them is emitting while doing namelookup and then it is pruned from the overload
set. And if it doe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||17729
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stephane at magnenat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46283
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01
02:56:10 UTC ---
I think the code should be rejected. Here is what Comeau online says:
"ComeauTest.c", line 14: error: ambiguous class member reference -- type
"b::foo"
(declared at line 4)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-bionic*
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52078
Bug #: 52078
Summary: Bogus may be used uninitialized warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52077
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52071
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01
02:33:15 UTC ---
*** Bug 52077 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mingw32
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-ibm-aix5.3 |powerpc*-*-aix*
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||basil at list dot ru
--- Comment #14 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51999
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sms at antinode dot info
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52017
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52077
Bug #: 52077
Summary: constructor confused
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-01
00:25:31 UTC ---
Still outstanding tasks:
timed waiting functions do nto return future_status::deferred if the shared
state contains a deferred function (requires an additional virtual function to
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-01
00:20:27 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Feb 1 00:20:08 2012
New Revision: 183788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183788
Log:
PR libstdc++/49204
* include/std/future (_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52076
Bug #: 52076
Summary: bloated code for setting single bits in bitfields on
m68k
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52075
Bug #: 52075
Summary: OpenMP atomic update failing if -fbounds-check
specified
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
classified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: d...@gcc.gnu.org
seen with trunk 20120131, on a powerpc-linux-gnu bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-31
22:27:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I somehow missed comment 5
The ICE is fixed by the patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-01/msg00277.html
However, I believe that test case is valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52073
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-31
22:24:16 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
int a, b, c, d, e, f;
void
foo (int x)
{
e = 1;
for (;;)
{
int g = c;
if (x)
{
if (e)
continue;
while (a)
--f;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
Greg Parker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gparker at apple dot com
--- Comment #34 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-31
22:08:35 UTC ---
> There appears to be no r182981 on that branch.
Well, the last commit before r182981 on 20120107: i.e., r182978 (date stamp).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2012-01-31 21:59:33 UTC ---
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 09:46:05PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
>
> --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2012-01-3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-31
21:46:05 UTC ---
AFAICT this is fixed in 4.6.3 r182981:
[macbook] f90/bug% /opt/gcc/gcc4.6p/bin/gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc/gcc4.6p/bin/gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51786
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51786
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-01-31 21:26:41 UTC ---
It seems to me that all these examples should be rejected (Thanks to Jens
Maurer for helping me here): At first it seems, that we can follow the grammar
chain starting from /declarati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
--- Comment #3 from John.Harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz 2012-01-31 21:26:45 UTC
---
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:57:22 +
> From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
> To: john.har...@vuw.ac.nz
> Subject
/gcc-r183767-install
--program-prefix=r183767- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120131 (experimental) (GCC)
[regehr@gamow tmp]$ current-gcc -Ofast small.c
small.c: In function 'fn8':
small.c:28:1: internal compiler error: vector VEC(vec_void_p,base) in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 21:08:34 UTC ---
submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01731.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52072
Bug #: 52072
Summary: Several non-deduced context not recognized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52071
Bug #: 52071
Summary: Constructor invocation confused
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52070
Bug #: 52070
Summary: missing integer comparison optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
19:09:00 UTC ---
(N.B. that ChangeLog entry cited the wrong PR)
The wording quoted in comment 25 is a POSIX defect:
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=70#c127
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52013
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52029
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-31
18:41:57 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 31 18:41:47 2012
New Revision: 183771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183771
Log:
2012-01-31 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52029
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-31
18:38:49 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 31 18:38:43 2012
New Revision: 183770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183770
Log:
2012-01-31 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52013
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-31
18:36:45 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 31 18:36:40 2012
New Revision: 183769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183769
Log:
2012-01-31 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-31 18:27:32 UTC ---
> I've still to closer investigate why this happens. I suspect that this
> is also the cause of the IRIX failures (a libgo build is currently
> running). Maybe th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-31
17:54:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> on i686-darwin9:
> make check-target-libitm
> RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fpie\{-m32,-m64\}"
>
> clone-1 fails (m32, m64), but stackundo passes on b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52043
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52043
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-31
17:41:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 31 17:41:24 2012
New Revision: 183768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183768
Log:
PR c++/52043
* cp-tree.h (PACK_EXPANSION_LO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
--- Comment #2 from Josh Haberman 2012-01-31
17:23:51 UTC ---
Is there any requirement that you trap if the 64-bit read would have trapped?
Aren't unaligned reads undefined behavior that only happen to work on x86-64?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
--- Comment #2 from trashyankes at wp dot pl 2012-01-31 17:04:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suppose you would want to annotate a specific call, not necessarily _all_
> calls to loop (those from main).
Im interested in calls from `loop(in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
16:38:47 UTC ---
Or perhaps, because nothing in tmpl.cpp referes to the constant, it is not
emitted in libtmpl.so at all when optimisation is enabled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
16:34:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Okay, got it; thanks a lot for the ultra-quick reply!
>
> Wouldn't a diagnostic message be helpful here even if it is not required by
> the
> standard? A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Betker 2012-01-31
16:25:02 UTC ---
Okay, got it; thanks a lot for the ultra-quick reply!
Wouldn't a diagnostic message be helpful here even if it is not required by the
standard? After all, the resulting binaries won't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52058
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52043
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52058
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-31
16:08:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 16:08:47 2012
New Revision: 183763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183763
Log:
PR bootstrap/52058
* combine.c (do_SUBST_LI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51786
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52018
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
15:50:57 UTC ---
Oops ... that should say "explicitly specialized" and "explicit specialization"
instead of "explicitly instantiated" and "explicit instantiation"
Sorry for any confusion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
15:47:40 UTC ---
The program is ill-formed:
"If a template, a member template or a member of a class template is explicitly
specialized then that specialization shall be declared before the first us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
15:27:47 UTC ---
Unsurprising. That code only statically-allocates a mutex, doesn't use C++
non-static data member initializers and doesn't use a recursive mutex (from the
info you've given it seems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Betker 2012-01-31
15:07:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 26536
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26536
bug test source files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
Bug #: 52069
Summary: ARM: initialization of static member in template
struct
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #32 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-31
14:56:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
FYI, the example code for pthread_mutex_trylock at...
http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/0201633922/sourcecode/trylock.c
http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-31
14:54:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 26535
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26535
i386 patch
Incremental patch to speed up i386 *CLASS_P macros. I agree it isn't as clean
as definin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-31
14:50:56 UTC ---
I guess in varpool.c you shouldn't talk about function in the message.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-31
14:31:56 UTC ---
I am testing the attached patch
Index: predict.c
===
--- predict.c (revision 183666)
+++ predict.c (working copy)
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-31
14:23:50 UTC ---
I suppose you would want to annotate a specific call, not necessarily _all_
calls to loop (those from main).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52068
Bug #: 52068
Summary: libc++98.a and libc++11.a are installed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-31
14:15:27 UTC ---
Sorry, missed this bug (and for really long file as I see now). It is
originally Zdenek's code. Will check it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
Bug #: 52067
Summary: force sibling call optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong-code with realloc on |[4.6/4.7 Regression]
|a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-31
14:02:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> It looks like IVOPTs fails to consider a candidate for the use inquestion
> and thus, after choosing the final IV set ends up rewriting that use into
> t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-31
13:56:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26534
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26534
Patch in testing
Hi,
I am testing the attached patch. It also plugs symmetric problem on varpool.
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin11 |*-apple-darwin*
Host|x86_64-a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52037
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-31 13:34:13
UTC ---
> BTW I've been using the following patch since August last year:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c b/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c
> index 75b8e9d..530fca3 100644
> --- a/gcc/i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52054
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-31
13:26:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 26533
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26533
patch
Prototype patch. Passes bootstrap but testing shows some regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40963
--- Comment #6 from Lars Pastewka 2012-01-31
13:24:27 UTC ---
A simple workaround for this bug seems to be:
cptr = c_loc(obj1%array(1,1))
in the above example. It compiles and appears to be doing what it should.
Maybe that also helps narrowin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-31
13:21:23 UTC ---
PR0?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
--- Comment #3 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 13:20:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 26532
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26532
test for false returns-twice warning
Attached a test that triggers a false warning due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49581
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-31
13:09:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 26531
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26531
patch
Patch to inline them. Quite ugly, but I can't use extern inline
__attribute__((gnu_inline)),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
Bug #: 52066
Summary: IRA and reginfo initialization too expensive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-31
12:55:53 UTC ---
template friend void f(A, T2);
would be a partial specialization of f which is not allowed. I don't think
it is possible to do what you are trying to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-31
12:51:25 UTC ---
*** Bug 52064 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
