http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-27 06:35:30 UTC ---
All listed examples fixed in r186894.
Todo: follow-up with fix for:
...
struct S { int i; };
extern struct S foo (void);
extern int foo2 (void);
struct S s;
int bar (int c)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-27 06:28:55 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 27 06:28:49 2012
New Revision: 186895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186895
Log:
2012-04-27 Tom de Vries
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-27 06:12:55 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 27 06:12:49 2012
New Revision: 186894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186894
Log:
2012-04-27 Tom de Vries
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
Khem Raj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-oe-linux-gnueabi
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
Bug #: 53135
Summary: internal compiler error: in value_format, at
dwarf2out.c:8010
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker 2012-04-27 05:24:45
UTC ---
Thanks for the tip. I was not aware of that option (it's like -ffloat-store but
also applies to casts, so it makes GCC's behavior ISO C conformant), and it
seems some attention has been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-27
05:04:21 UTC ---
Have you tried -fexcess-precision=standard ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134
Bug #: 53134
Summary: Request for option to disable excess precision on i387
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancemen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53133
Bug #: 53133
Summary: XOR AL,AL to zero lower 8 bits of EAX/RAX causes
partial register stall (Intel Core 2)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40761
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2012-04-27
01:31:49 UTC ---
This looks like the root cause. along with r174464, of a regression in C++11
mode from 4.6->4.7 on the following program:
$ cat test.cc
#include
class Uncopyable { // 2
Uncopya
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2012-04-26
23:56:22 UTC ---
Oops, I didn't actually realize you'd allocated an option for that in 4.8, and
was just making one up. Sorry for the distraction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39979
Peter Foelsche changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peterf at silvaco dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-26
23:43:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Can you, please try once again the attached patch? It should restore the
> original behavior.
In progress. Considering the amount of gcc work you do,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53096
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-26 23:32:17 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Apr 26 23:32:14 2012
New Revision: 186888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186888
Log:
/cp
2012-04-26 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-26
23:14:18 UTC ---
Oh, Ok, I wasn't there. In GCC we currently use -std=c++1y, but you know that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53132
Bug #: 53132
Summary: Missing top level in diagnostic's instantiation stack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2012-04-26
23:06:05 UTC ---
"17" was the rough consensus at Kona for the target for the next standard. You
could use -std=c++1y or c++1x or whatever instead.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17896
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51192
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill 2012-04-26 22:01:07
UTC ---
Ralf.. I am assuming this isn't an issue anymore.
$ h8300-rtems4.11-gcc --version
h8300-rtems4.11-gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20120322 (RTEMS
gcc-4.7.0-1.el6/newlib-1.20.0-6.el6)
This patch isn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-26
21:13:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 27250
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27250
proposed fix.
Thank you.
I actually found why the numbers does not match. I was wrong with my previous
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
--- Comment #25 from Nikos Platis 2012-04-26
21:02:36 UTC ---
The situation in the actual glm is more like the following. We also put t() and
f() in namespace glm as well, se we get the following code, which produces the
error:
namespace glm {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
Bug #: 53131
Summary: -Wlogical-op: ready for prime time in -Wall ?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130
Bug #: 53130
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c,
gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52145
Jeffrey Yasskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53129
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53129
Bug #: 53129
Summary: Wself-assign
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Starke
2012-04-26 18:07:37 UTC ---
The mailinglist discussion covers only a part of the problem. I have attached a
possible patch for gcc 4.7.0 to highlight to problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Starke
2012-04-26 18:06:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 27249
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27249
possible patch for gcc 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44811
David Piepgrass changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dpiepgrass at mentoreng dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
--- Comment #23 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-26
15:51:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> I am sorry if my knowledge on this issue is limited, but if I put t() and f()
> in namespace glm (re. the code in comment #20), should this compile? (That
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
Bug #: 53128
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Compiler produces infinite loop on
regular O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52997
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
--- Comment #22 from Nikos Platis 2012-04-26
14:33:45 UTC ---
I am sorry if my knowledge on this issue is limited, but if I put t() and f()
in namespace glm (re. the code in comment #20), should this compile? (That is
what you comment #19 implies
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Kostya Sebov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53118
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53111
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52940
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-04-26
14:20:50 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Apr 26 14:20:39 2012
New Revision: 186877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186877
Log:
PR middle-end/52940
* machmode.h (CLASS_HA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-26
14:20:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Can you, please, test the following patch? I will try to work out why this
> did not ICE before.
Works for me; fixes the regression, x to cris-elf at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53019
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-26
14:19:13 UTC ---
I still think it may be fine moving this warning to -Wextra, since it gives
false positives and when it does, they are hard to avoid.
Anders, you may get to convince more people
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52637
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-26 14:09:28 UTC ---
I think PR42122 is possibly related ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-26
14:09:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> glm::vec3 does not seem like a fundamental type.
It isn't, but its associated namespace is glm, and your f isn't in glm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.1 |---
Summary|[4.7 Regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40850
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-26 14:03:00 UTC ---
All test cases given here (comment 0, 4, 5 and 8) work with gfortran 4.6.3 and
above. I assume we can close this PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53019
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52637
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52940
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53127
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52997
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-04-26
13:25:48 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Apr 26 13:25:41 2012
New Revision: 186875
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186875
Log:
* PR middle-end/52997
* ira.c (find_moveab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53127
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53127
--- Comment #1 from Nickolay Cherney 2012-04-26
12:59:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 27246
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27246
preprocessed file gzip
didn't manage to attach it as plain text
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53127
Bug #: 53127
Summary: cc1plus segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-26
11:59:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I cannot see any way to know that FOO is a constant that
> > comes
> > from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38849
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #5 from janus at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-26 10:50:38 UTC ---
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> OK, but do you agree that the warning should be silenced always for ={0}?
Yes, I think that makes sense.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-26 10:37:26 UTC ---
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> It seems to me you are right. However, I cannot see how to check for ={0} at
> the point of the warning.
>
> Jos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53118
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Yegorushkin
2012-04-26 08:24:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 27245
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27245
The Makefile I use to download gcc and libs, build and install it.
Usage:
make download
mak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
Bug #: 53126
Summary: gcc-4.7.0 error "gcc-ar: Cannot find plugin"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53114
--- Comment #4 from Alexey Kravets 2012-04-26
07:55:25 UTC ---
-fno-ivopts option fixed this issue (thanks to Alexander Monakov ), so there is
an induction variables optimization issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-04/msg00815.html
79 matches
Mail list logo
