http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
Bug #: 53015
Summary: free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup is back
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips64-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53014
Bug #: 53014
Summary: [4.8 Regression] libffi failures on mips64-linux-gnu
with soft-float
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
--- Comment #6 from Lili Zhao 2012-04-17
02:43:31 UTC ---
Thanks all the same! I'll try on the latest gcc version to see if the bug
reproduce. Thank you!
2012/4/16 manu at gcc dot gnu.org
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50303
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17
02:29:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:27 2012
New Revision: 186519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186519
Log:
PR c++/50303
* pt.c (tsubst_pack_expansion)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17
02:29:40 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:35 2012
New Revision: 186520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186520
Log:
PR c++/50830
* pt.c (convert_template_argum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17
02:29:54 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:51 2012
New Revision: 186522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186522
Log:
PR c++/38543
* pt.c (determine_specializati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17
02:29:47 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:43 2012
New Revision: 186521
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186521
Log:
PR c++/52008
* pt.c (process_partial_specia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #18 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-17
02:21:29 UTC ---
Patch plus revisions in gcc-4_7-branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-04-17
00:54:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 27173 [details]
> Proposed patch
Looks even better.
> Only one thing ... is it safe to do the
> "@-r15", "@+r15" stuff in the atomic s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52840
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-17
00:19:16 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Apr 17 00:19:12 2012
New Revision: 186517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186517
Log:
2012-04-16 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
PR boo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #17 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-17
00:19:18 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Apr 17 00:19:12 2012
New Revision: 186517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186517
Log:
2012-04-16 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
PR bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-04-17 00:03:19
UTC ---
Created attachment 27173
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27173
Proposed patch
(In reply to comment #6)
> The patch looks just fine. I don't mind whether those atomics
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-16
23:51:45 UTC ---
Oh good. The I suppose that in the 4_7-branch the problem still exists: care to
check if the same patchlet works there too?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-16
23:44:19 UTC ---
> See if, by chance, libstdc++/52604 did the "miracle". I would like that ;)
Yep! At revision 186396, I get for
RUNTESTFLAGS="conformance.exp=deallocate_global_thread* ..."
Ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
--- Comment #6 from john.stevens at f5 dot com 2012-04-16 23:23:41 UTC ---
Ah, I see. We are using two different sets of pragmatics, and two different
definitions of the inclusion class of the standard.
Thanks,
John S.
-Original Message-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012
Adam H. Peterson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alphaetapi at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
22:44:46 UTC ---
Since we keep repeating the same things over and over again, with the same
links, and having the same arguments, I added a FAQ here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#My_program_invo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-04-16
22:37:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The patch looks just fine. I don't mind whether those atomics are
fully optimized or not ATM. Programs having atomics in the minor
loop are pathological in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-16
22:10:29 UTC ---
>IOW, "undefined" means the standard deliberately refuses to make a statement
about a real thing, it does not mean that the thing is not real.
That is unspecified behavior and not und
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
22:09:26 UTC ---
No, I would respectfully point out you're wrong, read the links in comment 1.
Undefined behaviour doesn't just mean "the standard omits to mention what
happens" it means *anything*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49565
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-16
22:04:20 UTC ---
See also http://www.dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=120213.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-16
21:47:39 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Apr 16 21:47:35 2012
New Revision: 186507
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186507
Log:
2012-04-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
--- Comment #2 from john.stevens at f5 dot com 2012-04-16 21:47:11 UTC ---
I would respectfully point out that "consistent", and "undefined by the
standard", are two different things.
I can expect consistent behavior that is not defined by the sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-16
21:38:53 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Apr 16 21:38:49 2012
New Revision: 186506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186506
Log:
2012-04-16 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52849
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52849
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-16
21:27:18 UTC ---
Really, 4.4.x is very old, especially in terms of C++11 features. Current
mainline, 4.7.0 and 4.6.x have no problems with the testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013
Bug #: 53013
Summary: Inconsistent Behaviour with Left Shift Operator.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-04-16 19:59:38 UTC ---
create_preheader (loop=0x77452440, flags=) at
/home/markus/gcc/gcc/cfgloopmanip.c:1391
1391 latch_edge_was_fallthru = (mfb_kj_edge->flags & EDGE_FALLTHRU) != 0;
(gdb) bt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41933
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-16
19:21:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 27172
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27172
incomplete patch
Here's the beginning of work to implement this. A lot more will be needed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012
Bug #: 53012
Summary: unrelated friend operators in same namespace interfere
with operator resolution outside of namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
Bug #: 53011
Summary: ice in verify_loop_structure: bad sizes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
h-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r186501-install
--program-prefix=r186501- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey 2012-04-16 18:01:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> match = self.compiled_rx.match(typename)
> print type(typename)
>
This is very odd. The code in context:
typename = self.get_basic_type(va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
--- Comment #2 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-04-16
16:22:04 UTC ---
I just tested, the problem happens only if the template arguments of
function_proxy are function pointers. More trivial types (int is what I've
tested) just work fine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-04-16
16:09:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 27170
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27170
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53009
Bug #: 53009
Summary: pointer to static member function of template class is
“invalid” as a template argument of another template
class
Classification: Unclassified
Prod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-16 16:03:55 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Apr 16 16:03:51 2012
New Revision: 186500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186500
Log:
2012-04-16 Uros Bizjak
Backport fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #42 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
15:47:37 UTC ---
Awesome, thank you very very much, Paolo and Manu.
The example in comment 23 can now be added to
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #40 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-16 15:32:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 16 15:32:22 2012
New Revision: 186499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186499
Log:
/cp
2012-04-16 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50303
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51819
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-04-16
15:19:47 UTC ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Apr 16 15:19:43 2012
New Revision: 186498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186498
Log:
2012-04-16 Ulrich Weigand
PR target/518
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
Bug #: 53008
Summary: abort in _ITM_getTMCloneSafe
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #6 from Krisztian Kocsis
2012-04-16 14:35:37 UTC ---
I currently know that glibc uses it but don't know who else use it.
In my projects I always use constructor/destructor attributes because with them
I can control the exection order.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51148
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51148
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-16
14:15:45 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 16 14:15:36 2012
New Revision: 186495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186495
Log:
PR c++/51148
* friend.c (make_friend_class)
> 2012-04-16 13:53:30 UTC ---
> I confirm that "revision 186494" fixed PR53007.
> btw:
> would it be possible to add the revision number to the oyuout of "c++ -v"?
> the current "version id"
> gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
> doe
on id"
gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
does not uniquely identify the content of the build…
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-16 13:50:35 UTC
---
How common is this construction in practice? Adding a warning or making GCC to
imply used attribute is same amount of work - it means teaching GCC about those
and possibly others specia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #37 from Michael Haubenwallner 2012-04-16 13:29:06 UTC ---
A few more references:
The fix for this one issue is:
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1IZ98134
But this introduces /usr/ccs/bin/as coredump during gcc boots
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51148
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53007
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
13:21:37 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 16 13:21:30 2012
New Revision: 186494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186494
Log:
2012-04-16 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
-mpc-lib=/usr/local/lib64
--enable-cloog-backend=isl --with-cloog=/usr/local
--with-ppl-lib=/usr/local/lib64 CFLAGS='-O2 -ftree-vectorize -fPIC'
CXXFLAGS='-O2 -fPIC -ftree-vectorize -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -march=native'
-enable-libitm -disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120416 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
12:36:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I should have time to create a patch for this before 4.8 goes into stage 3.
> Do
> you think it needs a copyright assignment and if so what paperwork
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-04-16 12:27:06 UTC ---
> Strangely, the same gdb binary works on Solaris 10 with the bundled
> libpython2.6.so, so this might be a bug in that library on Solaris 11.
Indeed when I point
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
Bug #: 53006
Summary: libstdc++-prettyprinters/shared_ptr.cc FAILs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
--- Comment #2 from Joshua Cogliati 2012-04-16
12:16:45 UTC ---
Yes, it should also warn for non-constants, and also for other floating
decreases in accuracy such as:
float foo(double x) {
return x;
}
I should have time to create a patch for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-16 12:16:04 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 16 12:15:50 2012
New Revision: 186493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186493
Log:
2012-04-16 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52935
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #4 from Krisztian Kocsis
2012-04-16 12:07:19 UTC ---
If it is treated as a user error than a warning should be printed because this
changes the behavior of what is dropped and what is not. People expect that
"used thinds" won't be dro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-16 12:01:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> First, my example was incomplete. Secondly, I just realized that gfortran
> rejects the program although I think it is valid (ifort also compiles it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
11:40:46 UTC ---
Unless we come up with a testcase that is a regression from an earlier release
a backport is unlikely.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-04-16 11:19:26 UTC ---
indeed.
will it be back-ported to 4.7.1?
btw
I find very "elegant" the
movaps(%rdx,%rax), %xmm0
minps%xmm1, %xmm0
movaps%xmm0, (%rcx,%rax)
produced by -Of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
11:18:51 UTC ---
Lili Zhao, I forgot to say, but feel free to reopen this if you can reproduce
the bug with GCC 4.7. Thanks for the report anyway, and sorry we cannot help
you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39728
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
11:10:07 UTC ---
Maybe the most widely used term is "compiler-generated" but I prefer implicity
defined.
(In reply to comment #2)
> * Do not show "In member function", it clutters the output and it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
11:03:20 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 16 11:03:16 2012
New Revision: 186491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186491
Log:
2012-04-16 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
--- Comment #5 from Mikka 2012-04-16 11:01:25 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > But what about cases such as (val1 == (ONE|TWO)) ?
> > >
> > > (ONE|TWO) is of type 'int' but that code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
10:58:06 UTC ---
Looks like a pre-existing bug to me - when we unswitch loops computing
irreducible regions before / after that can lead to inconsistent results.
Loop preserving leads to different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39728
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
10:53:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Every C++ programmer knows that the compiler implicitly defines special member
> functions, including the copy-assignment operator but I don't really l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53004
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
10:47:15 UTC ---
Yes.
If you got GCC 4.2 from Apple then you could report the bug to Apple, not here.
We do not support GCC 4.2, so it is pointless to report bugs for that version
here, they won't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39728
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16
10:44:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think libstdc++ include pathes make the error message useless
Manu has a patch for that in PR 52974
(In reply to comment #2)
> * What is a "synthesi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16
10:43:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> It seems like we could at least add a simple improvement that just checks for
> simple comparisons to 0. That probably catches most code (I often do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53004
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52948
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
--- Comment #2 from Lili Zhao 2012-04-16
10:17:43 UTC ---
Do you mean we should use a later GCC version?
(In reply to comment #1)
> GCC 4.2 is not supported, please try a current release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-16
10:15:35 UTC ---
ugh...
#0 0x004d7255 in gt_pch_p_14lang_tree_node (this_obj=0x75bf64c0,
x_p=0x75bf64c0, op=0x8b1a27 , cookie=0x7fffdb20)
at ./gt-c-decl.h:1448
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52948
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2012-04-16 10:14:49 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Apr 16 10:14:40 2012
New Revision: 186490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186490
Log:
Fix plugin testsuite, remove uses of TODO_dump_func (PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |c
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005
Bug #: 53005
Summary: GCC moves the called C function address and parameters
to the wrong stack position, when making C-style
calling of C functions in a C function with inline
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
