[Bug target/71607] [ARM] ice due to forbidden enabled attribute dependency on instruction operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71607 --- Comment #1 from Mickael Guene --- Created attachment 38739 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38739&action=edit ice backtrace

[Bug target/71607] New: [ARM] ice due to forbidden enabled attribute dependency on instruction operands

: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mickael.guene at st dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 38738 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38738&action=edit reduce test ca

[Bug libstdc++/68197] negative index to ios_base::iword lead to unpredictable result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68197 --- Comment #2 from Mickael Guene --- Anyway it's a bad usage since index must come from xalloc. I was unable to find what the specifications say in case of using a negative index (or invalid index), do you have some inputs in this case ?

[Bug libstdc++/68197] New: negative index to ios_base::iword lead to unpredictable result

Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mickael.guene at st dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 36639 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36639&action=edit segfault on my machine Atta

[Bug c++/53109] New: e.E::~E() should compile without error in c++ 2011

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53109 Bug #: 53109 Summary: e.E::~E() should compile without error in c++ 2011 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug c++/52599] New: illegal constexpr constructor declaration make g++ assert instead of returning an error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52599 Bug #: 52599 Summary: illegal constexpr constructor declaration make g++ assert instead of returning an error Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0