http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-12
06:27:42 UTC ---
As I said, there's a simple workaround.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 06:25:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I thought that -pg and -fomit-frame-pointer are always incompatible.
> Agree with the possible issues for old unwinders.
>
> I've forgotten that sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53641
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #16 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-06-12 05:16:28 UTC ---
Confirmed that the fix solves the problem as I originally observed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53641
Prakash changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||Changes
--- Comment #1 from Prakash 2012-06-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53641
Bug #: 53641
Summary: gcc/config/i386/crtfastmath.c gives internal compiler
error: Segmentation fault during make
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51768
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 03:49:37 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Tue Jun 12 03:49:33 2012
New Revision: 188419
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188419
Log:
2012-06-12 Joey Ye
Backport r182921
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 03:11:03 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 03:10:55 2012
New Revision: 188418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188418
Log:
Backport r180986 from mainline
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:50:37 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:50:34 2012
New Revision: 188416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188416
Log:
Backport r180240 from mainline
20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:45:27 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:45:23 2012
New Revision: 188415
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188415
Log:
Backport r179389 from mainline
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
--- Comment #5 from Kirby Zhou 2012-06-12 02:39:44
UTC ---
It is a BAD NEWS about no fix on the 4.7.X branch, and "it's not a regression."
The bug breaks a lot of already exist oode which is workable with GCC-4.4.X
release.
(In reply to commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50472
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:33:29 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:33:23 2012
New Revision: 188414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188414
Log:
Backport r179200 from GCC-4.6 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53634
--- Comment #2 from Taiju Tsuiki 2012-06-12 01:20:49
UTC ---
Oh, sorry. I might search in wrong way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-06-12
00:05:05 UTC ---
I thought that -pg and -fomit-frame-pointer are always incompatible.
Agree with the possible issues for old unwinders.
I've forgotten that sh coff targets went away. Then, removing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53640
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53640
Bug #: 53640
Summary: Missed cmove with stores
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53639
Bug #: 53639
Summary: x86_64: redundant 64-bit operations on 32-bit integers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53638
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-11
21:14:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> It is my opinion that this is not true.
It is true.
> It is possible that the template might
> have valid specializations that occur later on in the com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53638
Bug #: 53638
Summary: static_assert handling behavior ignores template
specializations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53568
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-11 20:02:41 UTC
---
Got rid of graphite options, it made no difference. I reduced the original test
from the suite and attached it's source, preprocessor output from 4.6 and 4.7
(no major difference), and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-11 19:57:12 UTC
---
Created attachment 27604
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27604
shorter source example, ~150 lines w/o comments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-11 19:56:14 UTC
---
Created attachment 27603
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27603
ZIP with pre-processed shorter example, callgrind output, and smaller binaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
Bug #: 53637
Summary: NRVO not applied in branches when it could be
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53511
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo 2012-06-11
19:24:24 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jun 11 19:24:20 2012
New Revision: 188396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188396
Log:
PR target/53511
* config/sh/sh.md (fmasf4):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53633
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540
--- Comment #2 from Akim Demaille 2012-06-11
17:27:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think it's valid, CC'ing Dodji for confirmation.
Any news?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53636
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53636
Bug #: 53636
Summary: SLP may create invalid unaligned memory accesses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51222
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-11
16:02:40 UTC ---
Last posted version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00157.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53324
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-11
15:34:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Maybe some annotation for the linker could help here.
Suggestions welcome.
I don't see any way to do anything here.
The docs say you need to recompile e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-11
15:27:17 UTC ---
Too late for 4.7.1. Francois, can you please apply the patch to 4_7-branch as
soon as 4.7.1 is out, thus for 4.7.2? Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-11
15:22:10 UTC ---
Oops, right you are.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] Libre |[4.7 Regression] Libre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53324
--- Comment #3 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com 2012-06-11 15:10:49
UTC ---
I get the point.
However, I could imagine that it is a quite common scenario to have a binary
contributed C++ lib. Mixing debug/non-debug is impossible due to n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #14 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com 2012-06-11 15:05:43
UTC ---
Is there a chance to get this into 4.7.1 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Benton 2012-06-11
15:00:41 UTC ---
Many thanks, Libre Office now compiles as expected. Should this bug be marked
as fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53635
Bug #: 53635
Summary: --enable-build-with-cxx: stage1-gcc shrinks from 1.1
GiB to 0.4 GiB
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53634
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52014
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
14:22:41 UTC ---
Bah, commit (I fixed up the ChangeLog already):
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 11 13:58:29 2012
New Revision: 188386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188386
Lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
14:14:15 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 11 14:14:09 2012
New Revision: 188387
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188387
Log:
2012-06-11 Richard Guenther
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
13:58:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 11 13:58:29 2012
New Revision: 188386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188386
Log:
2012-06-11 Richard Guenther
PR c++/536
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53634
Bug #: 53634
Summary: Segmentation fault on nested lambda + template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-11
13:41:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> but I wonder about the inconsistency between the max == INTEGER_CST and
> !INTEGER_CST case where we do _not_ add one to the expression to be mangled.
Yep,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-11
13:37:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> thus, replace a BLOCK context with the first non-BLOCK context, works.
That sounds good.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-11
13:03:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> fche says that some spammers create a Bugzilla account to send spam,
Yes, we've had a few attacks recently.
Thanks for identifying the problem so quickly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
12:54:50 UTC ---
It seems we never come along with a DECL_CONTEXT that is a BLOCK (nor does
the C++ frontend do that ...). Replacing the TYPE_CONTEXT clearing with
if (TYPE_CONTEXT (type)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
12:38:06 UTC ---
Removing the whole
if (debug_info_level < DINFO_LEVEL_TERSE
|| (TYPE_CONTEXT (type)
&& TREE_CODE (TYPE_CONTEXT (type)) != FUNCTION_DECL
&& TREE_CODE (T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-06-11
12:03:19 UTC ---
fche says that some spammers create a Bugzilla account to send spam, which is
why these spam checks are enabled for outgoing emails. So to mitigate the
problem till jobqueue is re-en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53633
Bug #: 53633
Summary: __attribute__((naked)) should disable -Wreturn-type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #6 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-06-11
11:46:26 UTC ---
He just told me that the checks for outgoing emails take between 2 and 10
seconds *per email*! I think we found the culprit. Either the scan must be
optimized (e.g. whitelist GCC Bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #5 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-06-11
11:36:20 UTC ---
fche told me on IRC that jobqueue has been disabled two weeks ago, which is
exactly when the slowness started to appear. So it may still be mail-related.
But a SMTP server shouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-11
11:16:38 UTC ---
Yeah :-) It's got _really_ slow. I don't remember which day it happened, but
it was a very noticeable sudden change from reasonably responsive to very slow.
After updating bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53433
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
11:09:17 UTC ---
I can reproduce it on SLE11-SP2, glibc-2.11.3, with plain ./configure
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto.
Honza? I suppose we have spurious DECL_EXTERNAL somewhere? extern inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-06-11
11:06:57 UTC ---
Wow, Bugzilla is indeed very slow, even when sending two emails only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-06-11
11:04:57 UTC ---
I did no changes to the Bugzilla code for almost two months, so I guess the
problem is external to Bugzilla. Based on duplicated comments in emails, I
suspect the mail server is slow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #6 from Georg 2012-06-11 10:59:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Small note: Same sequence of instructions from GNAT GPL 2011
> > running on x86_64 Linux/GNU:
>
> You're comparing apples with oranges though, that isn't the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
10:58:41 UTC ---
Ok. I suppose I need to "fix" gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_struct_returning.c
somehow then ... :/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Summary|new compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #4 from Georg 2012-06-11 10:31:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > > Other versions of the Ada compiler, and the C compiler,
> > > and the C++ compiler of the same version produce
> > > 1 DIVPD instructi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kirbyz...@sogou-inc.com
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
--- Comment #3 from Kirby Zhou 2012-06-11 10:15:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Fixed on trunk by patch for PR 50043
Did this patch apply to 4.7 branch?
I retested with 4.7 branch 20120610, The bug is still exist.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53592
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #3 from Georg 2012-06-11 10:09:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > Other versions of the Ada compiler, and the C compiler,
> > and the C++ compiler of the same version produce
> > 1 DIVPD instruction, as expected.
>
> Which other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #16 from xuepeng guo 2012-06-11 09:51:12
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:51:05 2012
New Revision: 188383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188383
Log:
2012-06-11 Terry Guo
Backport from mainli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51466
--- Comment #7 from xuepeng guo 2012-06-11 09:51:11
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:51:05 2012
New Revision: 188383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188383
Log:
2012-06-11 Terry Guo
Backport from mainlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||50176
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Bug #: 53632
Summary: [bugzilla] Bugzilla being very slow to submit changes,
sending duplicate emails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-06-11 09:28:49 UTC ---
the patch compiles and fixes my test case,
I've not tested any possible side effects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rohangarg at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #22 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:14 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye
Backport r184089
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52214
--- Comment #5 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:16 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye
Backport r184089,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51969
--- Comment #8 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:17 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye
Backport r184089,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-11 08:39:45 UTC ---
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2012-06-09 22:17:07
> UTC ---
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49870
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53622
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Bug #: 53631
Summary: [C++11] is unimplemented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-11
08:29:50 UTC ---
Documented as missing in
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html#status.iso.2011
The whole of Clause 28 is partially supported or not supported at all.
i.e. DOE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
Bug #: 53630
Summary: C+11 regex compiler produces SIGSEGV
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
