--- Comment #16 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-07 00:32 ---
The return statement, before the optimization, does two things; it causes a
copy constructor call, and it causes the function to return. NVR eliminates
the copy constructor call, but the statement still returns. At
--- Comment #5 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-14 00:51 ---
I do not see this crash with gcc 4.1.1. Is it still present?
I did see it with 3.4.2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10127
--- Comment #3 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 08:18 ---
Andrew is right, this isn't a bug, and is in fact required by the ABI.
See http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/abi.html#class-types, section II,
subsection 3. "First, attempt to place D at offset 0.
--- Comment #3 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 07:59 ---
Confirmed, I can get the failure in 4.1.1. It seems protoize only works right
on files in the current directory.
That said, it doesn't appear that anyone's done any work on protoize in years.
It no longe
--- Comment #2 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-11 01:55 ---
See the proposed patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00947.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15669
--- Comment #8 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 05:42 ---
If it is "latent but not reproducible" it shouldn't be a P1. Downgrading.
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 05:18 ---
OK, I'm going to artificially flag this one as "known to work" for 4.1.1 and
4.1.2 because I'm using that field to do bug status reports for the steering
committee, and we agree that 4.1 docume
--- Comment #6 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 07:30 ---
Should this one just be marked WONTFIX? If we don't support the HP
assembler this isn't a bug (assuming we say so in the fine manual).
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 06:55 ---
No answer to Andrew's question in over a year? Dropping the priority to P3,
marking as waiting for feedback.
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #8 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 06:13 ---
Just like PR 27668, I cannot confirm this bug for 4.1.1 or the 4.1 branch; it
passes for me.
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 06:07 ---
I cannot duplicate this bug with gcc 4.1.1 or with the current 4.1 or 4.2
branches. I don't get an ICE, just the expected error messages.
Is this bug still present?
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #28 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-15 19:38 ---
Yes, it seems that LD_LIBRARY_PATH is the cause of all the problems, but I also
think it might not be a great idea to just say "not a bug, PEBKAC" (problem
exists between keyboard and chair). The issue i
--- Comment #25 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 20:11 ---
Jerry: no, gmp isn't in the default path, which is why gcc was configured with
--with-gmp and --with-mpfr flags. On this particular machine I do not have
root, and since it's used to build apps for legacy
--- Comment #23 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 18:14 ---
I went and rebuilt everything, ran into the problem again, and determined that
it was because, although there was a correct --with-gmp, gfortran was failing
because gmp wasn't on LD_LIBRARY_PATH. But gmp is n
--- Comment #22 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-08 23:34 ---
Slow down, please! You don't need to set speed records for resolving bugs
here.
My report is not a duplicate of the bug you tried to attach it to, because I
did not use -j at all!
make -k check for gmp passe
--- Comment #20 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-08 23:10 ---
I'd like to reopen this bug, as I'm seeing it on sparc-sun-solaris2.8. I have
built the most recent GMP and MPFR versions and have the appropriate --with-gmp
and --with-mpfr lines. At first, MPFR woul
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25438
--- Comment #6 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-25 18:49 ---
Alexandre's right, -Wall should enable the warning.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25892
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http
--- Comment #1 from jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-21 01:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=10693)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10693&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25892
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25892
--- Additional Comments From jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25 20:54
---
It's OK if NVR uses the same location and emits no code, and if coverage
information reflects this. The problem is that part of the coverage machinery
appears to "think" that there is unreac
--- Additional Comments From jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25 01:40
---
Created an attachment (id=9355)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9355&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23052
igned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23052
--- Additional Comments From jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09 20:10
---
Severity raised to "critical" since it breaks debugging of all Java programs
(gdb dies when loading libgcj).
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15 23:41
---
Created an attachment (id=7751)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7751&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19025
--- Additional Comments From jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15 23:44
---
Forgot to mention the command line: gcc -c -Wall foo9.cpp
--
What|Removed |Added
Known
non-void function"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org
30 matches
Mail list logo
