http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48902
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-06
07:23:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 6 07:23:03 2011
New Revision: 173470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173470
Log:
PR debug/48902
* var-tracking.c (prepare_ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48895
--- Comment #1 from gingold at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-06 07:47:30 UTC ---
Author: gingold
Date: Fri May 6 07:47:27 2011
New Revision: 173471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173471
Log:
2011-05-06 Tristan Gingold
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-05-06
08:35:00 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri May 6 08:34:53 2011
New Revision: 173473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173473
Log:
Fix PR c++/48838
gcc/cp
PR c++/48838
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48898
--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2011-05-06 08:46:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Typo, can you please try this patch:
>
> Index: netware.c
> ===
> --- netware.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48908
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-05-06
08:34:18 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri May 6 08:34:10 2011
New Revision: 173472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173472
Log:
Fix PR c++/48838
gcc/cp
PR c++/48838
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48913
Summary: gcc -flto hangs and allocates all memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48908
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-06
09:19:38 UTC ---
Ok, so
other_amount
= simplify_gen_binary (MINUS, GET_MODE (op1),
GEN_INT (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode)),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48911
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914
Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wc++0x-compat"
doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48895
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48909
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48893
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48912
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48907
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48898
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48898
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-06 10:07:37 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri May 6 10:07:35 2011
New Revision: 173475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173475
Log:
PR target/48898
* config/i386/netwar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48894
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-06
10:12:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 6 10:11:59 2011
New Revision: 173477
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173477
Log:
PR fortran/48894
* fortran.c: Include limit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48894
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48252
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-05-06
10:21:30 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri May 6 10:21:26 2011
New Revision: 173480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173480
Log:
2011-05-06 Ramana Radhakrishnan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48894
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-06
10:12:59 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 6 10:12:57 2011
New Revision: 173478
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173478
Log:
PR fortran/48894
* fortran.c: Include limit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48913
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48894
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-06
10:14:44 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 6 10:14:41 2011
New Revision: 173479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173479
Log:
PR fortran/48894
* fortran.c: Include limit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48910
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-06 10:59:15 UTC ---
On Fri, 6 May 2011, Adam_5Wu at Hotmail dot com wrote:
> The workaround is to stop inserting "." in the system include search path
> chain.
>
> In file gcc-4.6.0/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48912
--- Comment #2 from sscrisk at gmail dot com 2011-05-06 10:58:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Thanks to replies.
> As a matter of fact, with the released 4.6.0 I'm getting an ICE, not a silent
> miscompilation for the second snippet. In mainl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47930
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-05-06
10:56:35 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri May 6 10:56:32 2011
New Revision: 173481
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173481
Log:
2011-05-06 Ramana Radhakrishnan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48894
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-06
10:11:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 6 10:11:07 2011
New Revision: 173476
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173476
Log:
PR fortran/48894
* fortran.c: Include limit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48912
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-pc-mingw32
--- Comment #3 from Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-05-06
11:09:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looking at this in a gdb session .
I should say this was on trunk.
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48911
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48915
--- Comment #1 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-05-06 11:31:38
UTC ---
Assigning to myself, I have some ideas to improve error handling and fix this
in the process.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #18 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-05-06
11:31:07 UTC ---
Candidate patch posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00474.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48679
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-05-06
11:19:10 UTC ---
The smallest .o file that fails bootstrap comparison is libiberty/alloca.o,
which get 150 bytes of .text with stage1 xgcc but 148 bytes of text with stage2
and stage3 xgcc (same op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48916
Summary: Falsely reported buffer overrun due to incorrect
__builtin_object_size.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48915
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48915
Summary: Incorrect process return code with -fdump-core
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48673
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-05-06
12:09:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Or schedule_block could have a mode of preserving the existing insn order,
> which can also be useful for testing purposes. If this sounds like an
> overkil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48916
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48673
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-05-06
12:33:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Or schedule_block could have a mode of preserving the existing insn order,
> > which can also be useful for testing purpose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48913
--- Comment #2 from Sven C. Dack 2011-05-06 12:35:57 UTC
---
I understand that it can use a lot of memory, but does LTO not partition the
work load and thus keep the memory consumption under control? Whatever the
default behaviour of LTO here is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48803
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48912
Tomohiro Kashiwada changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kikairoya at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48917
Summary: istringstream with integer overflow causes
uninitialised memory accesses
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48912
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48917
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48912
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-06
13:52:12 UTC ---
Thanks Jason for the clarification.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48911
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48900
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2011-05-06 14:21:20
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri May 6 14:21:16 2011
New Revision: 173488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173488
Log:
PR target/48900
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48900
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2011-05-06 14:31:03
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri May 6 14:31:01 2011
New Revision: 173490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173490
Log:
PR target/48900
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48900
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2011-05-06 14:30:14
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri May 6 14:30:10 2011
New Revision: 173489
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173489
Log:
PR target/48900
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva 2011-05-06
14:43:45 UTC ---
I don't see how it would. Except for some very particular cases (that do not
include the expansion of addresses AFAICT) we just expand each of the
replaceable stmts at the time thei
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48909
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48900
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2011-05-06 14:35:38
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri May 6 14:35:35 2011
New Revision: 173491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173491
Log:
PR target/48900
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48900
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48897
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48660
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48454
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-05-06
16:36:08 UTC ---
I am unable to replicate this with a recent version of trunk though the
assembler source attached appears to be broken.
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48887
Daniel Kraft changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |domob at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-06
18:12:29 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 6 18:12:25 2011
New Revision: 173500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173500
Log:
2011-05-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-06
18:12:29 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 6 18:12:25 2011
New Revision: 173500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173500
Log:
2011-05-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-06
18:33:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 6 18:33:31 2011
New Revision: 173503
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173503
Log:
Really commit:
2011-05-06 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-06
18:33:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 6 18:33:31 2011
New Revision: 173503
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173503
Log:
Really commit:
2011-05-06 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #44 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-06
18:35:04 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 6 18:35:00 2011
New Revision: 173505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173505
Log:
2011-05-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #45 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-06
18:39:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 6 18:39:08 2011
New Revision: 173506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173506
Log:
2011-05-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48910
--- Comment #2 from Adam_5Wu at Hotmail dot com 2011-05-06 20:00:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> But that code is processing an environment variable, and it's absolutely
> standard that empty elements in PATH-like environment variables are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-06
20:07:39 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk, holding for backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48615
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-06
20:06:42 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. Holding for backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46686
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-06
21:10:07 UTC ---
Repeating Thomas T. suggestion:
"We can treat FMT_G like FMT_E. After the rounding step, i.e. when the final
value of the variable e in output_float() is known (at the label 'skip'),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48911
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-06
21:57:45 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 6 21:57:41 2011
New Revision: 173510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173510
Log:
PR c++/48911
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_array_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48909
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-06
21:57:52 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 6 21:57:49 2011
New Revision: 173511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173511
Log:
PR c++/48909
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_condit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48909
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-06
21:58:47 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 6 21:58:44 2011
New Revision: 173516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173516
Log:
PR c++/48909
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_condit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48446
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-06
21:58:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 6 21:58:30 2011
New Revision: 173514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173514
Log:
PR c++/48446
* decl.c (stabilize_save_expr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48911
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-06
21:58:40 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 6 21:58:37 2011
New Revision: 173515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173515
Log:
PR c++/48911
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_array_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48909
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48911
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48089
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-06
21:58:25 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 6 21:58:22 2011
New Revision: 173513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173513
Log:
PR c++/48089
* semantics.c (potential_const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48918
Summary: GNAT Bug Box with Assert_Failure with einfo.adb:2661
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24189|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-06 22:38:34
UTC ---
loc_descriptor change in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg01406.html
@@ -14469,7 +15018,10 @@
up an entire register. For now, just assume that it is
legitimate to mak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-06 22:43:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> loc_descriptor change in
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg01406.html
>
> @@ -14469,7 +15018,10 @@
> up an entire register. For now, just ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
Summary: typename specifier should not ignore non-type names
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-06 22:40:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The patch works for me on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. It fixed the four new failures I
> had and caused no regressions.
Steve, does the latest GDB work on ia64 hp-ux? Yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey 2011-05-06 23:04:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > The patch works for me on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. It fixed the four new
> > failures I
> > had and caused no regressions.
>
> Ste
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48919
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48919
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48921
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5, 4.5.1
--- Comment #1 from Arthur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48921
Summary: Value numbering takes infinite time on nested infinite
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48908
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-05-06
23:14:30 UTC ---
I've tried the second patch with r173466. It fixes the build failure
for sh4-unknown-linux-gnu and there are no new test failures from r173407
on that target.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
--- Comment #1 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-06 23:47:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> […] As a perhaps related issue, the following looks well-formed:
>
> template
> void f(typename T::B) { }
>
> template
> void f(struct T:
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
