Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: holger.hopp at sap dot com
Target Milestone: ---
gcc-7 and gcc-8 produce much more unused (?) debug info when compiling in C++17
mode (compared to C++14 or C++11 mode).
Seems that unused debug info elimination (-f[no-]eliminate-unused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
--- Comment #6 from Holger Hopp ---
The patch fixes my >10 original issues with gcc-7.
It also fixes similar (other, fewer) issues with gcc-6 (gcc-6.2.1 was ok,
gcc-6.3.1 not ok, with patch ok).
So please downport this patch also to gcc-6 branch.
ent: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: holger.hopp at sap dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm getting linker error
`...' referenced in section `...' of ..: defined in discarded section `...' of
...
with gcc-7 compiled code, that do
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: holger.hopp at sap dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Following code throws internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with
g++ -c t.cpp --std=c++11 -fsyntax-only
(gcc Releases 6 and 7, gcc 5
Priority: P3
Component: regression
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: holger.hopp at sap dot com
following code throws an internal compiler error with g++-5.0 (gcc-5.0 works):
typedef char * CP;
const char * foo (void)
{
return ((const CP
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: holger.hopp at sap dot com
Following code throws an internal compiler error with g++-4.9 -O2
$ g++ -O2 -c tst.c
tst.c: In static member
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56844
Bug #: 56844
Summary: Loop condition wrongly optimized from < to !=
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52973
Bug #: 52973
Summary: visibility attribute for class is not passed to its
members
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
--- Comment #3 from Holger Hopp 2012-03-29
11:50:25 UTC ---
I agree that it is possible to define operator= for each struct that
is using t1 (in the original code (C code, but compiled as C++ code)
there is not only t2, and in all of them there a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
Bug #: 52755
Summary: Error on use of implicitly deleted operator=
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48570
Summary: gcc-4.6: wrong subscription with -std=c++0x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48249
Summary: gcc-4.6: __builtin___memmove_chk wrong results
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48165
Summary: gcc-4.6: internal compiler error: in build2_stat
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
A
13 matches
Mail list logo