http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
08:45:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 08:45:50 2011
New Revision: 173610
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173610
Log:
Backported from mainline
2011-05-07 Zdene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
08:47:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 08:47:09 2011
New Revision: 173611
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173611
Log:
Backported from mainline
2011-05-07 Zdene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
ray linn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.6.0
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48943
Summary: [gcc-4.6.0] opt.adb compiled error while multilib
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
08:45:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 10 08:45:00 2011
New Revision: 173609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173609
Log:
Backported from mainline
2011-05-07 Zdene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
Summary: [gcc-4.6.0] opt.adb compiled error while multilib
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2011-05-10 09:18:43
UTC ---
*** Bug 48943 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
Summary: build error: "libffi has not been ported to
avr-unknown-none."
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-10
09:08:39 UTC ---
I assume you're talking about binding the A& to a B object without an
accessible copy constructor?
That was the subject of a Defect Report against C++03 so has been fixed in G++,
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32164
--- Comment #10 from Ludovic Brenta 2011-05-10
08:48:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> This works with 4.4.x and 4.5.x:
>
> pak1.ads:2:09: prefix of "Unrestricted_Access" attribute cannot be intrinsic
I wouldn't qualify this as "working".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48942
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44273
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #2 from Zachary Vance 2011-05-10
09:48:47 UTC ---
Sorry to be cryptic as to the part of the standard I was talking about. Yes, I
was referring to report 391/589.
Yes, I agree that g++ should not issue an error for this file running
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48943
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-05-10
09:41:08 UTC ---
Here's something for formatted writes; consider the write-many.f (from some
other PR, I'm too lazy to check which now)
program main
open(10,status='SCRATCH')
a = 0.3858204
do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31983
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48945
Summary: [C++0x] static constexpr member function cannot be
defined out-of class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48946
Summary: [OOP] Deferred Overloaded Assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-10
10:09:15 UTC ---
Things go wrong well before check_return_expr: in cp_parser_lambda_body,
cp_parser_expression returns error_mark_node.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-10
10:07:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Sorry to be cryptic as to the part of the standard I was talking about. Yes,
> I
> was referring to report 391/589.
>
> Yes, I agree that g++ should not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48670
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
10:34:52 UTC ---
Anyway, most likely PR48190, i.e.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=171655
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48938
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Dep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #5 from Zachary Vance 2011-05-10
10:27:08 UTC ---
As long as folks are aware of this behavior and consider it proper, I
personally have no objection. I don't see any large benefit from changing it;
I was just confused when other peop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48725
--- Comment #6 from Vadim Markovtsev 2011-05-10
11:01:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Does it work with BFD linker in CVS?
>
> I will check that out tomorrow.
Sorry for such a delay,
I checked out binutils fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48947
Summary: 4.6.0 fails to link ffmpeg with LTO and gold
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-10
10:54:31 UTC ---
More debugging: fname_decl, called by finish_fname, returns error_mark_node,
whereas it doesn't for, eg, 'const char* f() { return __func__; }'. Note the
argument to finish_fname is co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-10
11:38:50 UTC ---
With a patch I have we now optimize at the tree level to
:
D.2686_2 = b_1(D)->bit0;
D.2688_4 = b_1(D)->bit1;
D.2693_10 = D.2688_4 ^ D.2686_2;
b_1(D)->bit0 = D.2693_10;
re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44160
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-10
11:42:41 UTC ---
A do_pushlevel(sk_block) missing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48896
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-05-10
12:16:15 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue May 10 12:16:09 2011
New Revision: 173617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173617
Log:
PR target/48896
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
11:46:34 UTC ---
*.asmcons is identical in between r171110 and r17, *.ira already looks
wrong (no setting of %rax to 24+.LPBX1, or changing the (%rax) address to
24+.LPBX1).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48947
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48896
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48889
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24205|application/octet-stream|text/plain
mime type|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
Summary: [C++0x] constexpr friend function cannot be defined
in-class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48896
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-10
12:53:07 UTC ---
Status: I have managed to eliminate the OUTPUT_FLOAT_G macro completely and all
floating point operations. What remains is to adjust the trailing blanks. The
patch is simple looking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-10
13:08:31 UTC ---
Further reduced testcase for -O3 -g:
void
foo (double x, int y, double *__restrict z, double *__restrict w)
{
while (y--)
*z++ = (*w++ = 0) * x;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48889
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
Johannes Schaub changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schaub.johannes at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48944
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-10 15:10:57 UTC ---
When I configure for this target I get:
*** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories:
target-libmudflap target-libgomp target-libssp ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Summary: gcc-4.6.0 regression with complex.h on
i386-pc-solaris2.10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2011-05-10
15:42:54 UTC ---
Thanks! Is this patch ok for the 4.6 branch too? If you don't have time to
backport it, I can.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Mariah Lenox changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386-pc-solaris2.10
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
Summary: a patch from 4.4.x not backported to 4.3.x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
Summary: probably, it is a bug.
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48770
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: andi-...@firstfloor.org
When running a Linux kernel LTO build with recent mainline
(gcc version 4.7.0 20110510 (experimental) (GCC))
I get a segfault during the final lto-wpa phase
In gdb I get
Program received signal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
--- Comment #9 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-10 16:27:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Thanks! Is this patch ok for the 4.6 branch too?
Yes, as it is a 4.6 regression, and Jason also approved it for 4.6.
> If you don't have time to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2011-05-10 16:33:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think that this is intended, but I would like to await feedback from
the developer group before submitting a corresponding core issue. IMO there are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48952
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen 2011-05-10
16:37:17 UTC ---
Some more information from gdb. So it follows some pointer in the VEC
that is NULL
(gdb) p edge
$1 = (struct cgraph_edge *) 0x7f1ce05d90d0
(gdb) p edge->uid
$2 = 38701
(gdb) disp/3i $pc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #3 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-10 16:46:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
>
> I don't think that this is intended, but I would like to await feedback from
> the developer group before submitting a corres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48938
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-05-10 16:40:46
UTC ---
Thanks for the reply. You are right, the assert described in PR48246 is at the
same place. However, I have 4.6 configured with --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df -
so checking_assert() should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-10
16:39:28 UTC ---
4.4 is available in cygwin. Just search through the setup and you will see it
listed with 4.4 appended to the name, something like gfortran-4.4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #4 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-10 16:59:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> gcc 4.7.0 20110507 (experimental) in C++0x mode rejects the following code at
> the line marked with #:
>
> //---
> struct B {
> friend constexpr int f(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-10 17:07:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > gcc 4.7.0 20110507 (experimental) in C++0x mode rejects the following code
> > at
> > the line marked with #:
> >
> > //---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich
2011-05-10 17:16:47 UTC ---
Way to go! I'll be happy to test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-10
17:12:30 UTC ---
I am mistaken. However you can get fairly recent Cygwin (or MingW):
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48857
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #6 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-10 17:20:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > gcc 4.7.0 20110507 (experimental) in C++0x mode rejects the following code
> > at
> > the line marked with #:
> >
> > //---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
--- Comment #2 from ufo008ahw 2011-05-10 17:26:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (gcc 3.4.2 is ancient, even if there is a bug noone will fix it in that
> version)
>
> what is the program's input?
> what is its output?
> what output are you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48953
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: type
mismatch in array reference with -flto and struct with
vararray
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48495
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48954
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in bitmap_count_bits
(bitmap.c:719) with -O2 -flto -fno-early-inlining
-fkeep-inline-functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48736
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-10
17:58:41 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 10 17:58:38 2011
New Revision: 173627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173627
Log:
PR c++/48736
* pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48930
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-10
17:58:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 10 17:58:46 2011
New Revision: 173628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173628
Log:
PR c++/48930
* class.c (type_build_ctor_cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48374
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-05-10 18:05:57
UTC ---
Thanks for the suggestion, Andrey. Using lower values for --param
max-sched-extend-regions-iters might reduce the compilation time in some cases.
I tested your patch on top of r173588
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-10
18:16:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 4.4 is available in cygwin. Just search through the setup and you will see it
> listed with 4.4 appended to the name, something like gfortran-4.4.
(In reply
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
--- Comment #4 from ufo008ahw 2011-05-10 18:11:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So, your expectations are wrong, because of course 4 < 1 is false, thus 0 as
> an
> integer.
??
my expectation is (4 < 1) output 0. but program output 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-10
18:33:13 UTC ---
it works correctly for me
you need to provide the "What we need" info requested at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ (no need for preprocessed source) and try with a
current version of the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #5 from Cezary Sliwa 2011-05-10
19:08:34 UTC ---
OK, if everything is backported you get the current version... I agree this
does not make sense. But this has a maintained status, which gives people a
false sense of security. You buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #6 from Cezary Sliwa 2011-05-10
19:11:22 UTC ---
PS. The gfortran version of ACML 4.4.0 appears to be built with 4.3.x.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-10
19:23:57 UTC ---
4.5 may be a test version as far as Cygwin folks downstream of us, but 4.5 and
4.6 are "Released" and perfectly useable from our view from here. Both are
better than any of the older v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48950
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Wrong result for array assignment
due to missing temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48952
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen 2011-05-10
20:49:28 UTC ---
I uploaded a (large) test case to
http://firstfloor.org/~andi/lto-kernel.tar.bz2
Run R2 in the directory after pointing the script to the right gcc binary.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.4, 4.4.0, 4.5.3
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48736
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48951
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48956
--- Comment #1 from stevenj at alum dot mit.edu 2011-05-11 00:01:32 UTC ---
PPS. I have reproduced this problem in gcc versions 3.3.6, 3.4.6, 4.1.3, 4.3.2,
and 4.6.0 running on an x86_64 Debian GNU/Linux system.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48956
Summary: -Wconversion should warn when a complex value is
assigned to a real result
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48954
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47755
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra 2011-05-11 04:29:21
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed May 11 04:29:13 2011
New Revision: 173643
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173643
Log:
PR target/47755
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr47755
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
