http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression]|[4.8 Regression]
|gcc.tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
--- Comment #3 from Thomas W. Lynch 2012-05-04
05:20:46 UTC ---
> I don't think this is valid as the memory which is done after the operator new
is considered as unitialized.
The code does not use any uninitialized memory. It does not read the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-04
03:40:51 UTC ---
I don't think this is valid as the memory which is done after the operator new
is considered as unitialized.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
Thomas W. Lynch changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://stackoverflow.com/qu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
Bug #: 53225
Summary: static operator new in multiple inheritance carries
incorrect type information for the class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-04 02:52:32 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri May 4 02:52:27 2012
New Revision: 187139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187139
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/52804
* reloa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-05-04 02:42:22
UTC ---
*** Bug 53177 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53224
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-04
02:43:22 UTC ---
synthesized_method_walk (type, kind, const_p, &raises, &trivial_p,
&deleted_p, &constexpr_p, false);
/* Don't bother marking a deleted constructor as con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53177
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53224
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-04
02:41:12 UTC ---
I think you need more context than just the above code.
Is *trivial_p and *constexpr_p checked when *deleted_p is true?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53224
Bug #: 53224
Summary: synthesized_method_walk returns uninitialized values
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53166
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-04
01:07:28 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 4 01:07:24 2012
New Revision: 187137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187137
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #52 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-04
00:31:58 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri May 4 00:31:55 2012
New Revision: 187134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187134
Log:
2012-05-04 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-04
00:31:53 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 4 00:31:50 2012
New Revision: 187133
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187133
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-04
00:28:21 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 4 00:28:17 2012
New Revision: 187132
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187132
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-04
00:05:15 UTC ---
Sorry, the first argument is the reference type to which the expression is
converted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-04
00:02:29 UTC ---
In short, the first argument of initialize_reference itself, the type of the
expression to be converted, has TYPE_REF_IS_RVALUE true for #12 and false for
#13, which should be equivale
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:57:59 UTC ---
If we compare lines #12 and #13, there are subtle differences inside
reference_binding (called by initialize_reference, which produces the error):
for line #12, which is accepted, TYPE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-05-03 23:25:54
UTC ---
PR51547 could be the same thing. I'll build and test trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:21:28 UTC ---
I meant PR50473, may or may not be related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-05-03 23:21:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Don't we have something in Bugzilla about auto && ?
There's PR 52851, but that's supposedly fixed in 4_7-branch, and (unless I
messed up) this bug is pres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-03
23:13:22 UTC ---
The second testcase is fixed now. The original testcase is much harder, but I
have a patch that follows the idea in comment #7. Let's see how it goes...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:12:34 UTC ---
Don't we have something in Bugzilla about auto && ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
Bug #: 53223
Summary: [c++0x] auto&& and operator* don't mix inside
templates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:04:35 UTC ---
A slightly improved patch is available here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg00429.html
but see the comments. I'm not sure I will be able soon enough to address the
no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52684
davem at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-05-03 22:53:39
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 186568:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-04/msg00519.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53222
Bug #: 53222
Summary: dejagnu trims leading whitespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-03
22:37:06 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Thu May 3 22:37:01 2012
New Revision: 187125
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187125
Log:
2012-05-04 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52684
--- Comment #12 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-03 22:34:41 UTC ---
Author: davem
Date: Thu May 3 22:34:34 2012
New Revision: 187124
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187124
Log:
Fix long double float miscompilations on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52684
--- Comment #11 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-03 22:19:42 UTC ---
Author: davem
Date: Thu May 3 22:19:35 2012
New Revision: 187120
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187120
Log:
Fix long double float miscompilations on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at mit dot edu
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-03
21:47:49 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu May 3 21:47:45 2012
New Revision: 187119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187119
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53219
--- Comment #1 from Martin Husemann 2012-05-03
21:34:13 UTC ---
It occured to me that gcc would (rightfully) behave this way, if the (previous)
value in %i0 should be considered dead at this point - which might be the case,
hard to tell due to lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53200
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51564
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #5 from Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
Bug #: 53221
Summary: [C++11] basic_string lacks "copy/move constructors"
with allocator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-03
19:53:07 UTC ---
gcc-compiled code for reference:
(gdb) disas main
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x00400540 <+0>: push %rbp
0x00400541 <+1>: mov$0x1,%
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: ppluzhni...@google.com
This appears to be a gcc-4.7 regression. Confirmed in:
g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20120331 (experimental)
g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20120503 (experimental)
#include
int main()
{
for (int *p = (int[]){ 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53216
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
--- Comment #1 from Tom Callaway 2012-05-03
19:47:15 UTC ---
Also seeing a very similar segfault with source-highlight (same environment,
Linux/sparcv9/32bit userspace):
(gdb) bt
#0 0xf7ae0d98 in __frame_dummy_init_array_entry () from /lib/libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53219
Bug #: 53219
Summary: inline function erroneously clobbers %i0 register on
64 bit sparc comiple of perls regcomp.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
Bug #: 53218
Summary: cmake segfaults on sparcv9
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-03
19:22:07 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu May 3 19:22:03 2012
New Revision: 187115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187115
Log:
PR middle-end/53093
* tree-emutls.c (new_e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-03
19:19:00 UTC ---
(define_peephole2
[(set (mem:VI8F_256 (match_operand 2))
(match_operand:VI8F_256 1 "register_operand"))
(set (match_operand: 0 "register_operand")
(mem: (match_dup 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-03
19:18:56 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu May 3 19:18:51 2012
New Revision: 187114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187114
Log:
PR middle-end/53106
* ipa.c (cgraph_remove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-05-03 18:38:27 UTC ---
The following testcase causes an ICE with current trunk (4.8)
MODULE xc_cs1
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: dp=KIND(0.0D0)
REAL(KIND=dp), PARAMETER :: a = 0.04918_dp, &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
Bug #: 53217
Summary: [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_ssa
failed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53216
Bug #: 53216
Summary: fmaf() alters rounding mode of sse2 FPU
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-04-25 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 17:50:20 UTC ---
lower-subreg patched committed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-05/msg00011.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53215
Bug #: 53215
Summary: Warn if orphaned memory is created by ignoring return
value of new
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 17:04:49 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu May 3 17:04:41 2012
New Revision: 187110
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187110
Log:
Add PR rtl-optimization/52543 to c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-05-03
17:00:48 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu May 3 17:00:32 2012
New Revision: 187109
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187109
Log:
2012-05-03 Martin Jambor
PR lto/52605
Hey there,
I tried to write a template that finds the smallest signed integer type
that can represent a given number. To achieve that, I am computing boolean
constant expressions and use them to pick the right template
specializations. This produces multiple "comparison is always true/false
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53200
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2012-05-03
16:36:17 UTC ---
Hmm. I see nothing amiss in that generated config file.
But see if by chance it isn't the same problem as fixed by r187102.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03 16:19:04
UTC ---
32bit x86 regressed (-O2 -mmovbe) with following testcase:
void
foo (long long i)
{
x = __builtin_bswap64 (i);
}
from:
foo:
movbe 4(%esp), %eax
movbe 8(%esp), %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53211
--- Comment #2 from niXman 2012-05-03 16:04:26 UTC
---
This code also works:
#include
template
void func(Args... args) {
const int arr[] = {args...};
for (int it: arr) { // !
std::cout << it << std::endl;
}
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53213
--- Comment #2 from lbl2007 at gmx dot net 2012-05-03 15:51:06 UTC ---
The command to reproduce the error is "g++ bug.c", not "gcc bug.c"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2012-05-03
15:16:39 UTC ---
FWIW, I verified that Honza's proposed patch fixes the build problems for
483.xlancbmk and 32-bit 447.dealII on powerpc-linux. Any ETA for getting this
committed?
Thanks,
Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
--- Comment #4 from Luke Dalessandro 2012-05-03
15:06:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27303
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27303
RBTree microbenchmark test case
I believe that I'm seeing this in the RSTM suite's RBTree microbe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
--- Comment #17 from Andi Kleen 2012-05-03
14:57:13 UTC ---
Hmm, my assumption was always that this option would be passed through and then
used by lto1 step. That's true for other -f* options at least.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53214
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53186
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 14:32:20 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 3 14:32:15 2012
New Revision: 187098
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187098
Log:
/cp
2012-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53186
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 14:28:52 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 3 14:28:46 2012
New Revision: 187097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187097
Log:
/cp
2012-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53213
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53214
Bug #: 53214
Summary: [lto]: ICE: munmap_chunk(): invalid pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53168
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
14:17:32 UTC ---
I think it is because of how we do VN lookup / insert during phi_translation.
SCCVN does not guarantee availability of its lookup result, thus when
such availability is not guarante
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53213
Bug #: 53213
Summary: Internal compiler error in math.h
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
13:28:50 UTC ---
This is slightly contrived:
namespace library
{
struct Interface {
virtual void handle(int) = 0;
};
struct Implementation : Interface {
void handle(int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
Greta Yorsh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana.radhakrishnan at arm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53211
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-03
13:15:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> In the large codebase I'm working on currently we use -Wall -Wextra but don't
> use -Woverloaded-virtual (and we are aware of it, it's in a Makefile bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
--- Comment #13 from Kenneth Zadeck
2012-05-03 13:14:31 UTC ---
The arm is one of the architectures for which lower-subreg is harmful
for some of the implementations.
kenny
On 05/03/2012 06:29 AM, Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com wrote:
> http://gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53210
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53212
Bug #: 53212
Summary: cpp consumes comment after pragma
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53211
Bug #: 53211
Summary: range-based 'for' expression of type 'const int []'
has incomplete type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53210
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
12:29:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The code has a typo, the mem-initializer should have been l(i)
Oops, typo! I meant is should have been j(i)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53210
Bug #: 53210
Summary: warning for data member initialized with itself should
be in -Wall
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03 11:43:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> So, should somebody file a bug against GCC that to make the SSE cr available?
Er, gcc doesn't need it, all SSE conversion builtins are implemented without
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
11:23:33 UTC ---
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
11:09:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 11:09:46 2012
New Revision: 187091
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187091
Log:
PR plugins/53126
* gcc-ar.c (main): If GCC_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-05-03
11:09:15 UTC ---
Isn't it too aggressive from user perspective to perform such transformation
even without warning? Especially for the case when that "wrong" read is not
used later.
Sure it is dangerou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
11:09:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 11:09:07 2012
New Revision: 187090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187090
Log:
PR plugins/53126
* gcc-ar.c (main): If GCC_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Jaeger 2012-05-03 11:02:43
UTC ---
So, should somebody file a bug against GCC that to make the SSE cr available?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53185
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-05-03 10:59:05 UTC ---
The testcase now (trunk@187082) segfaults in fold_binary_loc:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to process 29611]
0x009cb27d in fold_binary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
Bug #: 53209
Summary: tree check ICE: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in
comp_template_args_with_info, at cp/pt.c:7038
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
10:54:09 UTC ---
I don't have a strong opinion.
In the large codebase I'm working on currently we use -Wall -Wextra but don't
use -Woverloaded-virtual (and we are aware of it, it's in a Makefile but
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
