http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55213
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
Bug #: 55542
Summary: g++ segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Bug #: 55541
Summary: unable to see local variables due extra lexical block
was generated
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #3 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-11-30 01:41:14
UTC ---
I'm still unconvinced that it makes sense as part of
-funsafe-math-optimizations at all. It's not an "optimization" in the sense
that people usually think of when looking at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-30 01:31:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 28832
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28832
simplify-rtx patch
With the patch, this code takes a single instruction. However, if I replac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55321
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55321
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-29
22:58:37 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 29 22:58:23 2012
New Revision: 193973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193973
Log:
PR middle-end/55321
* calls
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55540
--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-11-29 22:58:44
UTC ---
Gack.
I'm still at a loss as to where __int128 is coming from. I don't think it's an
integral promotion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55540
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-29
22:21:25 UTC ---
-9223372036854775808 is two different tokens. unary minus and the literal
9223372036854775808. 9223372036854775808 does not fit into long so it is
unsigned long.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||etlverified at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55538
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55213
--- Comment #4 from Joshua Conner 2012-11-29
22:17:50 UTC ---
I'm also seeing this same issue in libgfortran's matmul_r8.c, where the inner
loop has an aliasing check even though all of the pointer dereferences are via
restricted pointers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55540
Bug #: 55540
Summary: The C++ literal -9223372036854775808 is misinterpreted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55538
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55539
Bug #: 55539
Summary: [4.8 Regression] -fno-sign-zero may generate wrong
formatted output
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55538
Bug #: 55538
Summary: [C++11] ICE when calling a member function from lambda
in templated class; in get_expr_operands, at
tree-ssa-operands.c:1035
Classification: Unclassif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51662
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53862
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53523
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53862
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-29
21:58:22 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 21:58:16 2012
New Revision: 193970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193970
Log:
PR c++/53862
* pt.c (tsubst_ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51662
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-29
21:58:10 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 21:58:04 2012
New Revision: 193969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193969
Log:
PR c++/51662
* method.c (proces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54777
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akrzemi1 at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55537
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55521
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-29
21:25:07 UTC ---
Opened radr://12777299 so that the darwin linker maintainer could look at this
issue. His analysis of the failing test case so far is...
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34548
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55537
--- Comment #1 from Andrzej Krzemienski 2012-11-29
21:19:10 UTC ---
Even a slightly simpler example crashes:
BEGIN
constexpr int j = 0;
constexpr int const& get() {
return (0, j);
}
constexpr int i = get();
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55535
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-29
21:18:47 UTC ---
I think this is ultimately PR53434 or a very close relative.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55537
Bug #: 55537
Summary: constexpr usage crashes the compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|rth a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55536
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2012-11-29
21:15:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28831
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28831
Patch
Patch is not perfect but btest runs successfully with change.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #10 from Richard Henderson 2012-11-29
21:11:05 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Nov 29 21:11:00 2012
New Revision: 193959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193959
Log:
PR libgcc/48076
* emutls.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55536
Bug #: 55536
Summary: libbacktrace abort in backtrace_alloc at mmap.c:99
running btest
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55535
--- Comment #1 from Niels Penneman 2012-11-29
21:07:07 UTC ---
Wrong copy/paste for output. Below is the correct compiler output.
$ g++ -fsyntax-only -Wall -Wextra voodoo.cxx
voodoo.cxx: In function ‘void func()’:
voodoo.cxx:10:20: error: size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson 2012-11-29
21:06:07 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Nov 29 21:06:02 2012
New Revision: 193958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193958
Log:
PR libgcc/48076
* emutls.c (_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55535
Bug #: 55535
Summary: Call to default constructor with overloaded subscript
operator is interpreted as declaring/using array
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
Bug #: 55534
Summary: -Wno-missing-include-dirs does not work with gfortran
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50852
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55533
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55533
Bug #: 55533
Summary: Can't bootstrap libsanitizer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-29
20:17:36 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:17:20 2012
New Revision: 193957
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193957
Log:
PR c++/53137
* pt.c (tsubst_ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53862
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-29
20:17:26 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:17:02 2012
New Revision: 193956
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193956
Log:
PR c++/53862
* pt.c (tsubst_arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
--- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-29
20:16:57 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:16:46 2012
New Revision: 193955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193955
Log:
PR c++/50852
PR c++/53039
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50852
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-29
20:16:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:16:46 2012
New Revision: 193955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193955
Log:
PR c++/50852
PR c++/53039
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55532
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|akramnik at gmail dot com |
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-29
20:13:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:12:58 2012
New Revision: 193954
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193954
Log:
PR c++/53137
* pt.c (tsubst_ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55532
--- Comment #1 from Matt Godbolt 2012-11-29 20:03:47
UTC ---
I can reproduce this on GCC 4.8 (rev 185382], and g++ 4.6.3. Adding -O makes
the issue go away (as the whole program is optimized to "return 0;").
From the assembler dump the segv ap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55532
Bug #: 55532
Summary: Runtime segfault calling mutable lambda wrapped in a
non-mutable lambda within a template function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-29 19:08:28
UTC ---
This patch:
diff --git a/gcc/lto-symtab.c b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
index 0b0cdac..295fd37 100644
--- a/gcc/lto-symtab.c
+++ b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
@@ -443,10 +443,6 @@ lto_symtab_merge_dec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-29 19:07:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 28829 [details]
> Proposed fix
>
> I suppose something across these lines should do the trick. I am not sure
> what
> exactly is th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55456
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-29
19:00:49 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Nov 29 19:00:38 2012
New Revision: 193948
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193948
Log:
2012-11-29 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-29
18:52:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 28829
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28829
Proposed fix
I suppose something across these lines should do the trick. I am not sure what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #25 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-29 18:43:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 18:43:29 2012
New Revision: 193947
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193947
Log:
PR target/53912
* prefix.c (looku
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #24 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-29 18:40:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 18:40:27 2012
New Revision: 193946
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193946
Log:
PR target/53912
* prefix.c (looku
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-29
17:51:49 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Nov 29 17:51:40 2012
New Revision: 193943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193943
Log:
PR target/55073
* arm/neo
plicit-templates
-fdiagnostics-show-location=once -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections
-frandom-seed=compatibility-atomic-c++0x.lo -ffixed-r40 -ffixed-r41 -ffixed-r42
-ffixed-r43 -o compatibility-atomic-c++0x.s
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.8.0 20121129 (experimental) (epiphany-elf)
compiled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|vector literal |constexpr vector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-29 15:40:27
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:40:16 2012
New Revision: 193938
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193938
Log:
2012-11-29 Marc Glisse
PR c++/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-29
15:36:53 UTC ---
Frankly, additional examples which are neither self-contained nor minimized
don't help that much. That said, this is a regression and we have already a
minimized snippet, thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Alexander Dubov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oakad at yahoo dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #23 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-29 15:28:54
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:28:48 2012
New Revision: 193936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193936
Log:
PR target/53912
* class.c (dump_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #22 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-29 15:27:45
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:27:36 2012
New Revision: 193935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193935
Log:
PR target/53912
* class.c (dump_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #21 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-29 15:26:36
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:26:29 2012
New Revision: 193934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193934
Log:
PR target/53912
* class.c (dump_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55492
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod 2012-11-29
15:20:04 UTC ---
Send it to the patches list.
As long as you have a waiver on file allowing the code to be used I can check
it in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-29
14:40:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Thanks for the head's up. I was just looking at ML's thread and thought it
> would be still pending.
Sorry, I broke the thread by replying to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|vries at gcc dot gnu.org|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-29
14:24:44 UTC ---
Already in mainline:
2012-10-31 Jonathan Yong
* config/os/mingw32-w64/os_defines.h: Do not define anymore
_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BROKEN_VSWPRINTF.
If a backport isn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-29 14:17:37
UTC ---
My ok JonY has for the patch of 4.8. It is related to a fix present upstream
in mingw-w64 about snprintf-arguments for POSIX-mode. So I don't intend to
have this patch backported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55523
--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-29 14:12:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yeah, either you'd need to provide prototype for the function in
> epiphany-protos.h, or you shouldn't include those calls in the condition o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55530
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja 2012-11-29 13:37:29
UTC ---
Sorry, the minimal testcase should have been:
struct __attribute__ ((visibility("internal"))) A {};
struct B { A * a; }; /* warning: 'B' declared with greater visibility than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55530
Bug #: 55530
Summary: Visibility warning not always shown
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-29
13:31:57 UTC ---
IMHO, Jakub's replies + the clarification about static mean this is invalid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55052
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-11-29
13:29:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Patch applied.
fixes the issue and the another issue in perlbmk which had the exactly the same
symptoms
Thanks.
ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-29 13:25:07 UTC ---
It's defined as:
94 int rcu_num_lvls __read_mostly = RCU_NUM_LVLS;
and never modified elsewhere AFAICS.
and from kernel/rcutree.h:
364 struct rcu_state {
365 struc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-29 13:16:08 UTC ---
The testcase was derived from the Linux kernel:
CC kernel/rcutree.o
kernel/rcutree.c: In function ‘rcu_init_one’:
kernel/rcutree.c:2850:13: warning: array subscript is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-29
13:06:21 UTC ---
This kind of warning is diagnosed even for code that isn't always executed
(after all, in most cases you don't know whether a function will be ever
executed from main or not), u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-29 13:02:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Why is the warning bogus? If the loop body is executed at all, you always
> overflow the loop bounds.
Sure, but the loop is never executed i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Bug #: 55529
Summary: Bogus array-bounds warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
Riccardo Manfrin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||RiccardoManfrin at email
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54744
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-29
11:38:42 UTC ---
Infinite recursion in resolve_typename_type, between the two recursive calls
inside it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54910
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-11-29
11:15:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> ... and this particular case wouldn't arise, since Thumb-2 (ARMv7) implies the
> CLZ instruction (ARMv5), and I wouldn't need this table-based
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54910
--- Comment #3 from George Spelvin 2012-11-29
11:12:52 UTC ---
... and this particular case wouldn't arise, since Thumb-2 (ARMv7) implies the
CLZ instruction (ARMv5), and I wouldn't need this table-based implementation if
I had CLZ. :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Krack 2012-11-29
11:12:56 UTC ---
I also checked the more complete patch PR5469, but it shows still the memory
leaks as described in comment 5 for the 4_7-branch. The same is true for the
gcc trunk version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53685
Jos de Kloe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kloedej at knmi dot nl
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55528
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
