http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
--- Comment #8 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-05 05:58:22 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Sun Feb 5 05:58:18 2012
New Revision: 183902
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183902
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52091
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #23 from gee 2012-02-05 02:43:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Breakpoint 9, _Unwind_RaiseException (exc=0xa92820)
> at ../.././libgcc/unwind.inc:88
> 88uw_init_context (&this_context);
> (gdb) bt
> #0 _Unwind_RaiseE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #22 from gee 2012-02-05 02:11:12 UTC ---
Breakpoint 9, _Unwind_RaiseException (exc=0xa92820)
at ../.././libgcc/unwind.inc:88
88uw_init_context (&this_context);
(gdb) bt
#0 _Unwind_RaiseException (exc=0xa92820) at ../.././l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52119
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2012-02-05
02:04:00 UTC ---
I hadn't tested
#define __glibcxx_min(T) \
(__glibcxx_signed (T) ? -__glibcxx_max(T) - 1 : (T)0)
but now I have, and it works with clang.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #21 from gee 2012-02-05 01:22:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 26574
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26574
proposed patch for workaround TestEarlyGC failure
it deals raw closure stub with thiscall calling convention.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-04
22:58:06 UTC ---
Jon, interesting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-04
22:54:51 UTC ---
But using decltype((o<
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-04
22:53:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Yesterday I was wondering: is there something in C++11 saying explicitly
> > that
> > these tricks are allowed,
> In N3242, 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-04
22:49:17 UTC ---
Thanks Daniel.
Ben, I know SFINAE ;) what I was looking for is something *in the library*
chapters saying somehow explicitly that for overload resolution purposes or
other QoI purpose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #5 from Ben Longbons 2012-02-04
22:36:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yesterday I was wondering: is there something in C++11 saying explicitly that
> these tricks are allowed,
In N3242, 14.8.2/{7,8}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48847
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2012-02-04 21:44:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (PS: Daniel tweaked tuple_cat the same way)
There is a difference here: For tuple_cat we have a user constraint that says
that the template argument shall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38035
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39618
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsg at openbsd dot org
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-04
20:39:58 UTC ---
(PS: Daniel tweaked tuple_cat the same way)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52116
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-04
18:41:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> ah, got home where I have a bunch of versions ...
Since this is not a regression and GCC 4.7 is close to release, I don't think
this will be fixed bef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52116
--- Comment #2 from Ben Longbons 2012-02-04
18:30:46 UTC ---
ah, got home where I have a bunch of versions ...
GCC < 4.6 fail with error: #pragma GCC diagnostic not allowed inside functions
GCC 4.6.{0,1,2}, branch-4.6 r183147, and trunk r182496
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52095
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-04
16:51:37 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 4 16:51:31 2012
New Revision: 183895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183895
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/52095
* modulo-sched.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52124
Bug #: 52124
Summary: config/cr16/cr16.c: possibly redundant code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
Bug #: 52123
Summary: [4.7] gcc bootstrap with ada fails on mingw target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #53 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-04
13:38:57 UTC ---
I did think about fixincludes, but that would undef
PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER for everyone, whereas we only really need
to undef the gthr equivalent to stop libstdc++ usin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Bug #: 52122
Summary: [4.6.x/4.7] incorrect ln -s replacement for mingw like
targets in configure files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52113
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52113
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-04
12:47:58 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 4 12:47:55 2012
New Revision: 183894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183894
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/52113
* lower-subreg.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #20 from gee 2012-02-04 11:32:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 26573
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26573
proposed patch for workaround Throw_2 failure
it was call %ebx for sig_pat. and Throw_2 test passed with this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51649
--- Comment #10 from Pawel Sikora 2012-02-04 11:26:24
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Author: tromey
> Date: Mon Jan 30 16:25:11 2012
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183732
could you backport this for 4.6 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52116
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52116
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-04
11:09:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 26572
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26572
patch to fix (2)
I am not surprised. Location information in GCC is not very precise. Have you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52111
--- Comment #4 from alexander tismer 2012-02-04 11:02:55
UTC ---
I think you are right. Thanks again for your helpful annotations.
But I'm not sure if I understand everything correctly.
>> Thus, the compiler is not required to diagnose it - and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52119
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41709
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52119
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52103
--- Comment #3 from mlg 2012-02-04 09:50:39 UTC ---
> You can use C++11 explicit override control
Since it is a lot of existing code, I'm afraid I'd have to
have _them_ used override 5 or 10 or so years ago.
43 matches
Mail list logo