http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53069
Bug #: 53069
Summary: expected warnings are not given
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53068
--- Comment #4 from Ivan Godard 2012-04-22
06:08:28 UTC ---
Looking a little further at this, I don't think we can use init_array at all,
even if it ran in reverse order.
Consider TUs in a .a library, where some of the TUs have an order depende
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53068
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Godard 2012-04-22
04:49:46 UTC ---
Wow - this will break a lot of big users - we are far from the only ones who
find priorities unusable.
BTAIM, it appears that our choice is to use an option (there is one? what?) to
for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53068
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-22
03:56:07 UTC ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770#c76 for more info.
Really any dependance on link order is invalid for C++ code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53068
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-22
03:53:53 UTC ---
I don't think this is collect2 changing the order but rather .init_array which
changes the order.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53068
Bug #: 53068
Summary: collect2 breaks link order control
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53059
--- Comment #5 from ratnikov.ev at ya dot ru 2012-04-22 03:26:43 UTC ---
Anyway there will be no backward compability.
I mean when I use a library compiled with gcc-4.7.0 + 0x with other code
compiled with pervious gcc versions (and vice versa).
It
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: cmalo...@tagged.com
Building the following code with gcc4.7 snapshot 20120421 fails, but passed
with gcc4.6.
$g++ -std=c++11
#include
#include
int main(int, char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53056
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53059
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-21 18:55:22 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Apr 21 18:55:18 2012
New Revision: 186657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186657
Log:
gcc/
PR bootstrap/53021
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53030
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53048
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53062
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53059
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-21
18:06:31 UTC ---
N.B. the size is still 8 with -std=c++98
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53059
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-21
18:05:42 UTC ---
Why do you think this is a bug?
The C++ 2011 standard requires that std::list::size() is O(1) so a new member
variable is needed to store the container's size.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53062
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53066
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Manuel Ló
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53066
Bug #: 53066
Summary: Wshadow should not warn for shadowing an extern
function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
Wenbin Lv changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53065
Bug #: 53065
Summary: ICE replace_reg_with_saved_mem, at caller-save.c:1125
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-21
14:59:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> * gcc.dg/scal-to-vec2.c: New test.
This one runs the problematic code, but since this is a compile-only test, it
can't detect a problem. A variant tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-21
14:53:25 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Sat Apr 21 14:53:21 2012
New Revision: 186652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186652
Log:
2012-04-21 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR 3544
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
Bug #: 53064
Summary: -Wsenquence-point behaves inconsistently
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
Bug #: 53063
Summary: encode group options in the .opt files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53062
Bug #: 53062
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 445.gobmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52821
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #32 from Alan Modra 2012-04-21 13:27:51
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Apr 21 13:27:44 2012
New Revision: 186650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186650
Log:
PR libstdc++/52839
* acinclude.m4 (_GLIBCXX_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #33 from Alan Modra 2012-04-21 13:28:59
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Apr 21 13:28:53 2012
New Revision: 186651
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186651
Log:
PR libstdc++/52839
missed from last delta
Modif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-21
13:06:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> There is no better or worse specialization - the first one is a primary
> template, not a specialization.
But if it were another partial specialization, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32614
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53061
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53061
Bug #: 53061
Summary: [C/ObjC/C++/ObjC++] cleanup diagnostics initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53059
--- Comment #1 from ratnikov.ev at ya dot ru 2012-04-21 12:23:36 UTC ---
g++ -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/i486-slackware-linux/4.7.0/specs
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/i486-slackware-linux/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53059
Bug #: 53059
Summary: sizeof(std::list)=12 was 8 in previous releases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
Bug #: 53060
Summary: Typo in build_binary_op for scalar-vector ops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #8 from Michal Malecki 2012-04-21
12:06:36 UTC ---
Jason,
There is no better or worse specialization - the first one is a primary
template, not a specialization.
The example of tuple_slice<1, int, int, int> will just not match the
s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53058
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52947
ralpheng...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ralphengels at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53058
Bug #: 53058
Summary: Another ice in remove_range_assertions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53057
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-21
07:45:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27210
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27210
patch
Bootstrapped and regression tested.
Not posting it to gcc-patches yet, for several reasons:
- I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53057
Bug #: 53057
Summary: [c++0x] ICE on construction off of initializer list
with overloads for constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Stat
51 matches
Mail list logo
