http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-17
09:30:25 UTC ---
Actually, gcc documents that __int128 is *not* an extended integer type:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integers-implementation.html
(the comment in the source file specifically menti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17
09:48:55 UTC ---
yep, confirmed that r178552 changed the behaviour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50433
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 10:54:53 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Sep 17 10:54:50 2011
New Revision: 178928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178928
Log:
2011-09-17 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-17 11:23:43 UTC ---
I have used the term "sui generis extended type" to refer to types such as
__int128 that share many properties of integer types but are not such
types (since intmax_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443
Bug #: 50443
Summary: ICE when using brace-enclosed initializer for C-style
array in constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50185
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17
14:23:42 UTC ---
Uhm, I noticed only now that submitter talks explicitly about -std=gnu++0x, not
-std=c++0x. Sorry. Would be the first time I guess we enable a C++11 feature
only for gnu but I think th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 15:00:33 UTC ---
Contrary to what I suggested in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-09/msg00083.html
this problem does not seem to be specific to SUBROUTINEs. It also happens when
making pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
Bug #: 50444
Summary: unaligned movdqa instruction after inlining
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #6 from RétroX 2011-09-17 16:32:18
UTC ---
Yeah, I was talking about specifically -std=gnu++0x, because that implies that
you're accepting the GNU extensions into the standard.
I suppose that in this case, because the standard is so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34265
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:44:25 UTC ---
I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early
(already when parsing the corresponding source line, where 'aproc' is not known
yet).
Here is a si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:53:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early
Btw, there was a similar problem recently (PR 49112 comment 6), which w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50223
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-17 19:35:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> With fix I commited for PR50430 and the workaround for PR50383 my build dies
> on
> java modules. I believe it is the problem we run into with Mich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17
19:51:48 UTC ---
Ok, I'm doing this. By the way, the type for which we had weird problems was
__m128i, not __int128_t (not my idea using it...)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17
20:33:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> In terms
> of operations, at some point for sure the extended integer types
*Ahem!* __int128 is not an extended integer type! GCC does not support any
ext
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50445
Bug #: 50445
Summary: Rejects use of constant expression using a pointer
non-type template parameter
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17
20:40:30 UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't mean *extended* in any technical sense, but in the same sense
used by Joseph, "sui generis".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17
20:49:21 UTC ---
works fine with
gcc version 4.7.0 20110917 (experimental) [trunk revision 178930] (GCC)
and
gcc version 4.6.2 20110917 (prerelease) [gcc-4_6-branch revision 178930] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17
20:55:14 UTC ---
by "works fine" I mean no ICE, there's an error because it should be a{5,7,3}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17
21:19:05 UTC ---
I'd like to have some help about the best way to figure out whether the target
supports __int128_t and __uint128_t: is __CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__ >= 64
good enough?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17
21:32:49 UTC ---
Better adding configure tests...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-17 21:42:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > With fix I commited for PR50430 and the workaround for PR50383 my build
> > dies on
> > java modules. I believe it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443
--- Comment #3 from Kerrek SB 2011-09-17 21:50:05
UTC ---
Alright, if it's fixed already, that's fine. I only have the full release
versions, so I didn't test anything newer than 4.6.1. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-17
22:35:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Sep 17 22:35:10 2011
New Revision: 178932
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178932
Log:
PR c++/50442
Revert:
PR c++/49267
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.2 |4.7.0
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-17
22:35:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Sep 17 22:35:10 2011
New Revision: 178932
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178932
Log:
PR c++/50442
Revert:
PR c++/49267
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-17 23:53:30 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Sep 17 23:53:26 2011
New Revision: 178933
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178933
Log:
2011-09-17 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
38 matches
Mail list logo
