http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #2 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-20 21:30:22 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> so this would demonstrate the problem?
[snip example]
Yes, precisely.
> I haven't checked whether this is valid
I looked at N3126 aroun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
21:39:23 UTC ---
(you can edit an existing attachment to set the content type)
thanks for the nice minimal testcase, that's very useful
I *think* this is a dup of another bug I've seen in bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36694
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46107
Summary: verify_loop_structure problem
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
22:46:45 UTC ---
I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
building on 32-bit I can reproduce a segfault
it doesn't build on 64-bit at all:
1) you can insert a pointer into an ostream without casting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
22:47:59 UTC ---
oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about the
claim that more than one process is involved - do you mean more than one
thread?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46107
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-20
23:18:48 UTC ---
Hi Johnathon,
(In reply to comment #5)
> oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about the
> claim that more than one process is involved...
My bad - the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-10-20
23:26:33 UTC ---
What if implicitly-defined move-constructors go away again? If I understand
correctly that the bits we are missing are part of the recent work on implicit
moves and the Committee ends
Unparalleled channel insights. Management strategies you can implement now.
Impeccable research. These are just a few of the topics highlighted in each
issue of CRN magazine, the voice of the channel for over 20 years. As a channel
professional, you are entitled to a FREE subscription today:
h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46108
Summary: constexpr ICE: streambuf_iterator.h:97
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46108
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-10-20
23:38:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 22101
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22101
pre-processed sources
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre 2010-10-20
23:43:33 UTC ---
But there's something strange in the generated code: sometimes the fsqrt
instruction is used, sometimes "call sqrtf" is used (for the same sqrtf() call
in the C source). This is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
23:48:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Hi Johnathon,
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about
> > the
> > claim that more than o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-20
23:49:18 UTC ---
%.60f
You really should use hex float to see the diferences. I bet it is just the
final digit of the hex float that is different and only by one. This is
actually ok IIRC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46106
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-20
23:52:29 UTC ---
gcc.1 is generated from doc/invoke.texi.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-10-21
00:45:19 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Oct 21 00:45:15 2010
New Revision: 165746
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165746
Log:
2010-10-20 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
02:00:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
>
>
>
> I can see some value in the warning you want, but it's not going to help if
> you
> don't use the compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46109
Summary: gcc-4.5.0 fails to build on
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46110
Summary: Precompiled headers: GCC fails to properly locate
include files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36503
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Strange 2010-10-21
04:39:36 UTC ---
I built ffmpeg for x86-64 with --disable-asm with the attached patch and the
regression tests failed. Reverting the patch fixes them. I saved the binaries
but haven't investigated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46083
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-10-21 05:32:00 UTC
---
> Honza, maybe your constructor re-ordering doesn't honor priority?
It should via the same logic as non-ELF ctor/dtor code does, but I will double
check.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #4 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-21 05:36:58 UTC
---
Adding an explicit A(A&&)=default; doesn't help, so I don't think this is
related to the implicit stuff. More like a missing piece of code telling the
compiler how t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46109
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43170
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yuri at tsoft dot com
--- Comment #78 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46107
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-21
06:15:34 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Oct 21 06:15:30 2010
New Revision: 165749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165749
Log:
2010-10-21 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo