https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #8 from Alexander ---
PR 67022 was filed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67022
--- Comment #3 from Alexander ---
configure options:
../gcc-4.8.5/configure \
--enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/opt/hp-gcc \
--with-local-prefix=/opt/hp-gcc --with-gnu-as \
--with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --without-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67022
--- Comment #2 from Alexander ---
Created attachment 36066
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36066&action=edit
assembler output with -O1 optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67022
--- Comment #1 from Alexander ---
Created attachment 36065
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36065&action=edit
assembler output with -O2 optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67022
Bug ID: 67022
Summary: ia64-hpux failed to compile libcpp/charset.c with -O2
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
Alexander changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alm at sibmail dot ru
--- Comment #7 from Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66934
--- Comment #7 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > I think we could combine most of your reports into one or two PRs since
> > they're all related and fixing t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66934
--- Comment #6 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Problem report i.e. bugzilla bug.
Ok. Done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66935
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66934
--- Comment #5 from Anders Granlund ---
*** Bug 66935 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66934
--- Comment #4 from Anders Granlund ---
I'm pulling in this test case from my related bug report.
int x = 1;
int main() {
extern int x;
using ::x;
}
I this case the program is well-formed (the two declarations in main are not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #10 from Anders Granlund ---
Here comes two more test cases moved in from my related ICE on compile bug
reports:
namespace X {
struct S;
namespace Y {
namespace Z = X;
struct Z::S {};
}
}
int main() {}
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66878
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #9 from Anders Granlund ---
*** Bug 66878 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #8 from Anders Granlund ---
*** Bug 66901 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66901
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #7 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> So confirming as accepts-invalid with this testcase:
>
> class A;
>
> namespace Y {
> using ::A;
> class A { };
> }
Here are two similar test cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #6 from Anders Granlund ---
*** Bug 66889 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66889
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #5 from Anders Granlund ---
*** Bug 66888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66888
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67017
--- Comment #5 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #3)
> > > I think that is because type deduction for return types of functions was
> > > introduced in c++14.
>
> Y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67017
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> EDG and Clang also accept this in C++14 mode (and like GCC, reject it in
> C++11 mode).
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36063
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36063&action=edit
autopar/outer-7.c
C example to reproduce the same problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67017
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> EDG and Clang also accept this in C++14 mode (and like GCC, reject it in
> C++11 mode).
I think that is because type deduction for return types of functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67011
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Although if you're still seeing a problem with std::exponential_distribution
then I guess it's not the same bug.
(Please ignore tr1/random.h unless you're actually using
std::tr1::exponential_distribution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67017
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
EDG and Clang also accept this in C++14 mode (and like GCC, reject it in C++11
mode).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01304.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00970.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-01/msg00221.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
To some extend this could be considered a regression if it is a true bug as
GCC's old parser did not error out about this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67016
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to bug 12479.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #4)
> Is ARM a c++ standard before c++98?
It is the C++ Annotate Reference Manual. It was not exactly a standard but it
was what described C++ before the standard c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #4 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> It might have changed between the ARM and C++98, but I haven't checked.
Is ARM a c++ standard before c++98?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67016
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
EDG also gives no diagnostic and Clang says it's a GNU extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67011
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
One is for std::exponential_distribution and one is for
std::tr1:exponential_distribution. The former is already fixed and the latter
is moribund and we don't really care about it any more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67012
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18969
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
Bug ID: 67021
Summary: [c++-concepts]
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
Bug ID: 67020
Summary: /gcc/gcc.c:878:32: error: macro
"CHOOSE_DYNAMIC_LINKER" requires 4 arguments, but only
3 given
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67019
Bug ID: 67019
Summary: [c++-concepts] ICE: canonical types differ for
identical types
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67016
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks like this changed between c++11 and c++98.
>
> Note you are quoting c++11 but compiling with c++98.
>
> Also this is a big incompatibility with c99 an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66975
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02064.html ) patches fixes
the problem for operations that do not overflow, f.i. min and max.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66623
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67018
Bug ID: 67018
Summary: [c++-concepts] Failure to partially order function
templates by constraints
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #7 from Gary Funck ---
Don't know what the criteria is for closing bugs, but as far as I'm concerned,
this bug can be marked resolved and the other two referenced PR's marked as
duplicates of this one. (They're against older rev's, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67009
--- Comment #4 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #3)
> Confirmed, I also see it in my builds since 20.07 (several cases of
> -Wshift-overflow were implemented in r225998).
>
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36057&action=edit
Updated tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18969
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Sun Jul 26 17:04:31 2015
New Revision: 226236
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226236&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/18969 (invalid return statement diagnosed too late)
gcc/cp/Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67000
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck ---
We're seeing this as a bootstrap failure in libitm, built with checks enabled
and both host and target compilation flags set to -O0. We do not see the ICE
when compiled at -O3 and --enable-checking=release. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67009
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I'm testing gcc-5_5.2.1-12 (r226105) now as suggested by Matthias.
Unfortunately, my SH7785LCR board crashed earlier today, so I had to restart
the build.
Once the build is finished, I will attac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I think it's safe to say this has been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #49 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #48)
> Can we close this as fixed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #56 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #55)
> Can we close this as fixed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67016
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like this changed between c++11 and c++98.
Note you are quoting c++11 but compiling with c++98.
Also this is a big incompatibility with c99 and a surprising one too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67017
Bug ID: 67017
Summary: Mixing init-declarator for variables and functions in
declaration with auto type-specifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
That comment seems to be incorrect. The c++ standard has never forbidden empty
declarations at global namespace. I think we should get a warning instead of an
error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67016
Bug ID: 67016
Summary: Redeclaration of enum
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44081
--- Comment #14 from Hugo van der Sanden ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> Should we close this?
With what status?
I think it should at least be updated to CONFIRMED, based on the comments from
valeriy.
I should note als
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #2 from Roger Leigh ---
Note regex2.cc fails with 4.9.2 but not with 4.9.3 or 5.1, so this appear to
have been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|preprocessor|c
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035
--- Comment #7 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
(quote from the mentioned discussion):
> We then have the call to bar() which could change the value of N to 1. We
> then hit the second loop and read temp[0] which is uninitialized. The warning
> for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 36056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36056&action=edit
regex2.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
Bug ID: 67015
Summary: "^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]*$", std::regex::extended is
miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67009
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #2
73 matches
Mail list logo
