http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson 2012-06-09
06:18:53 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Sat Jun 9 06:18:38 2012
New Revision: 188358
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188358
Log:
PR c++/53602
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson 2012-06-09
06:17:27 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Sat Jun 9 06:17:12 2012
New Revision: 188357
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188357
Log:
PR c++/53602
* combine-stack-adj.c (forc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #10 from Richard Henderson 2012-06-09
06:14:34 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Sat Jun 9 06:14:27 2012
New Revision: 188356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188356
Log:
PR c++/53602
* combine-stack-adj.c (forc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53618
David Krauss changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
--- Comment #1 from David Krauss 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53618
Bug #: 53618
Summary: segfault on self-referential class partial
specialization argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53617
Bug #: 53617
Summary: Suboptimal PC-relative addressing code on x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53415
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53256
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-06-08
22:42:27 UTC ---
See also the following AVR-LibC bug report:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?26734
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27590|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2012-06-08 19:49:07
UTC ---
Created attachment 27590
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27590
incomplete patch
I wonder if this is the right direction. At least it passes the testsuite and
optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552
--- Comment #8 from gccbgz.lionm at xoxy dot net 2012-06-08 18:56:19 UTC ---
Nice! Thanks for fixing!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
--- Comment #4 from kaladhorn at me dot com 2012-06-08 18:46:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Out of curiosity, would there be a technical issue in this case?
> > It sure seemed natural to me.
>
> AFAICS there sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53611
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-08
18:44:18 UTC ---
I think this is expected behavior as if someone defines a "__cook" in the
executable which links to the shared library, it will be considered a different
type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vhaisman at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53612
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52265
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 17:26:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jun 8 17:26:11 2012
New Revision: 188335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188335
Log:
2012-06-08 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113
--- Comment #2 from safety0ff.bugz at gmail dot com 2012-06-08 17:20:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 27589
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27589
This patch works for me (I have no clue whether it is the "proper" fix.)
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
Bug #: 53616
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006
miscompiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53595
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-06-08
17:04:41 UTC ---
FYI, the patch attachment 27568 also resolves the strange error described in
PR53615, at least for the test case given there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53615
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-06-08
16:52:54 UTC ---
Note: In attachment 27588 the long version is commented out. You have to remove
the comment and the second CODE32 like so:
#define CODE32 \
"out %2, %C1\n\tmovw r30, %1\n\telpm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53615
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-06-08
16:48:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 27588
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27588
wek.c
And here is the source file wek.c
Compiled with the above options yields:
$ avr-gcc -c we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53615
Bug #: 53615
Summary: Buffer overflow in the compiler?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53614
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113
safety0ff.bugz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||safety0ff.bugz at gmail d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53614
--- Comment #2 from Cameron MacMinn 2012-06-08
15:18:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 27587
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27587
to verify correctness using -DWORKAROUND, else ignore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53614
--- Comment #1 from Cameron MacMinn 2012-06-08
15:17:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 27586
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27586
2nd output of -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53614
Bug #: 53614
Summary: g++ undefined symbols static const data members
conditional assignment
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-06-08 13:06:52
UTC ---
The main difficulty is trapping math. It isn't hard to add to
tree-ssa-ifcombine an ifcombine_ifnotandif variant, and we could make it call
maybe_fold_and_comparisons (as ifcombine_ifand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-08
11:18:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Workaround: define parent destructor outside the class definition.
Or add explicit 'noexcept' specifiers to the derived destructors.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-08
11:16:47 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk by patch for PR 50043
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53611
--- Comment #1 from Kirby Zhou 2012-06-08 11:16:36
UTC ---
gcc source base:
DATE 20120604
svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/redhat/gcc-4_7-branch@188193
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
Bug #: 53613
Summary: Cannot override a inline "= default" virtual
destructor.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53612
Bug #: 53612
Summary: __attribute__((format(...))) does not work with
wchar_t format strings
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53611
Bug #: 53611
Summary: class with hidden visibility cause function returns
pointer to class also be hidden
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53609
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-08
09:27:34 UTC ---
A tad simpler:
template
struct pair
{
T first;
U second;
pair(const T&, const U&);
};
template
struct array
{
typedef T value_type;
value_type data[1];
};
array const> m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-08
09:20:47 UTC ---
No includes:
template
struct pair
{
T first;
U second;
pair(const T&, const U&);
};
template
struct array
{
typedef T value_type;
value_type data[1];
};
struct string
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53610
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-08
09:14:23 UTC ---
This seems to be an incomplete implementation of C99 designated initializers,
use -pedantic or -pedantic-errors to get a diagnostic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53610
Bug #: 53610
Summary: C++11: constructors accept silly initializers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53609
Bug #: 53609
Summary: Wrong variadic template pack expansion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #16 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 08:58:02 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Jun 8 08:57:53 2012
New Revision: 188332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188332
Log:
2012-06-08 Joey Ye
Backport r184442
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #12 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 08:57:59 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Jun 8 08:57:53 2012
New Revision: 188332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188332
Log:
2012-06-08 Joey Ye
Backport r184442
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51915
--- Comment #6 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 08:58:01 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Jun 8 08:57:53 2012
New Revision: 188332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188332
Log:
2012-06-08 Joey Ye
Backport r184442
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-08
07:57:23 UTC ---
Or perhaps just handle this particular case for now, when there has been jump
threading right after the sp adjustment sequence that cancelled each other.
Thus, if we reach end of bb af
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 07:55:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This patch avoids the segfault and correctly rejects the test case. I hope it
> does not introduce any other problems (I'll try it on the testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fro
51 matches
Mail list logo
