http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51607
Bug #: 51607
Summary: configure: error: GNU fortran compiler is not working
;
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51607
--- Comment #1 from David 2011-12-18 09:25:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 26127
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26127
fortran library config log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51607
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51608
Bug #: 51608
Summary: [4.7 Regression][C++11] Unordered containers
end(size_type) isn't constant time
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51608
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51589
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51602
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51571
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50504
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51599
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51606
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51609
Bug #: 51609
Summary: [C++11] unique_ptr::reset rejects
cv-compatible argument pointers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Same error building SDL 1.2.14 on msys/mingw using gcc 4.6.1. By default, no
optimization flags are passed to gcc, adding -O2 makes the build succeed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2011-12-18
13:13:36 UTC ---
gcc version 4.7.0 20111218 (experimental) [trunk revision 182459] (GCC)
Fedora 16/x64
$ cat c51590.c
#include
extern void baz(char *);
static
void
bar( struct timeval *sv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
--- Comment #5 from Dan Nagle 2011-12-18 13:13:48 UTC
---
Citations from 10-007r1.pdf
[185:17-18] says the polymorphic symbol_ptr takes the type of the type guard
within the type guard.
[171:7-8] says the associating entity loses the pointer at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-12-18
13:54:42 UTC ---
The problem appears to occur in rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1, case REG. It returns
false for any address formed by the frame or stack pointer plus an offset,
regardless of the value of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #6 from Tobias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51607
--- Comment #3 from David 2011-12-18 14:15:15 UTC ---
any ideas of how to solve this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51609
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-18
14:47:50 UTC ---
I'll look into this today...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51597
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-18
15:05:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> :~$gcc -lm rf.c
try gcc rf.c -lm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-18 16:39:24 UTC ---
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:01:13AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Dan, Stave: If possible, please also update your GCC to 2011-12-11 or newer -
> at least if you use OOP/po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51610
Bug #: 51610
Summary: [OOP] Class container does not properly handle POINTER
and TARGET
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51599
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51374
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-18
19:01:56 UTC ---
In combine.c:try_combine, just after the "Trying..." dump output, there is:
i0 = 0
i1 = 0
i2 =
(set (reg/v:QI 43 [ status ])
(mem/v:QI (const_int 43 [0x2b])))
i3 =
(set (p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524
Magnus Granberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26124|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33475
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24058
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yuri at tsoft dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51611
Bug #: 51611
Summary: [c++0x] ICE with non-static data member initializer
and virtual base class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51612
Bug #: 51612
Summary: [c++0x] [4.7 Regression] ICE with constexpr
constructor and virtual base class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51612
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
--- Comment #11 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-12-18 21:52:43
UTC ---
Created attachment 26129
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26129
preprocessed source for another occurence
I’m also getting one of these. Not sure if it’s the sam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
Thorsten Glaser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Comment #12 fr
reate --no-recursion
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.7.0 20111218 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
--- Comment #13 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-12-18 22:10:13
UTC ---
This is a regression: this works
gcc-4.4 -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/tmp/buildd/libvirt-0.9.8/./src -I..
-I/tmp/buildd/libvirt-0.9.8/./gnulib/lib -I../gnulib/lib -I../include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51613
Bug #: 51613
Summary: Ambiguous function template instantiations as template
argument are not rejected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51614
Bug #: 51614
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with ambiguous base class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51614
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51615
Bug #: 51615
Summary: Condition Variable queue state corruption and infinite
loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51612
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-18
22:33:19 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Dec 18 22:33:15 2011
New Revision: 182461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182461
Log:
PR libstdc++/51540
* include/bits/stl_num
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51364
--- Comment #8 from Domingo Alvarez 2011-12-18
23:30:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> An executable with decimal float support is very big because the runtime
> support is in static libraries, not in shared libraries (DLLs). That will
> pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-12-19 00:08:54 UTC ---
The attached patch seems to fix the tm test failures. However, it
needs a bit more testing
and I don't understand the registration magic.
--
John David Anglindave.a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51529
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51364
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
00:21:36 UTC ---
There's nothing strange - the runtime code is in static libraries, so all the
code for doing I/O must be linked into the executable if you use e.g. printf.
Using isnan probably does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
Bug #: 51616
Summary: [4.7 Regression] gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 fails on
hppa*-*-hpux*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
--- Comment #15 from Thorsten Glaser 2011-12-19 00:28:18
UTC ---
Hi Mikael,
thanks for caring, you seem to be everywhere ;-)
Yes, it is reproducible with the cross-compilers I build using the standard
procedure from https://wiki.debian.org/Buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
00:34:33 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 19 00:34:29 2011
New Revision: 182467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182467
Log:
PR libstdc++/50862
* include/std/conditio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
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=51616
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-12-19 01:03:44 UTC ---
On 18-Dec-11, at 7:55 PM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Well, the obvious questions is "Does hpux11 have a sqrtl() in libm?"
No. It only has basic quad arithmetic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51340
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2011-12-19 01:29:12 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Is there any particular reason why this should not be enabled by
> > default for SH targets that support the FMAC insn?
>
> PR29100
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-19 01:30:19 UTC ---
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:03:44AM +, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> >
> > Possibly, relates to PR 51057
>
> I filed a separate bug because I thought it was a different issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2011-12-19
01:45:16 UTC ---
Possibly, you referred to the wrong PR. PR 51057 is about the precision
of IBM long double.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
01:49:14 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 19 01:49:08 2011
New Revision: 182468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182468
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-11-13 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
01:49:59 UTC ---
backported for 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48933
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
01:52:05 UTC ---
This has also been partially fixed for 4.6.3 by backporting the fix for bug
51083
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-19 02:21:34 UTC ---
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:45:16AM +, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
>
> --- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2011-12-19
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51609
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
02:24:24 UTC ---
While I agree the code is reasonable, I think an LWG issue is needed, because I
don't think GCC's behaviour is in conflict with the standard.
I don't read [unique.ptr.runtime] p1 b2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51364
--- Comment #10 from Domingo Alvarez 2011-12-19
02:25:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 26131
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26131
Program to show that gcc doesn't generate good code size
Here is a program and a batch file that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51603
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51128
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
Bug #: 51617
Summary: [C++0x] async(f) isn't.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
05:11:20 UTC ---
I should add this (non-normative, but still) note from [futures.async]:
[ Note: If this policy is specified together with other policies, such as when
using a policy value of launch::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51489
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-19
05:57:58 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Dec 19 05:57:52 2011
New Revision: 182470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182470
Log:
PR c++/51489
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_outerm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51489
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
Bug #: 51618
Summary: synchronous futures are slow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51609
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2011-12-19 07:07:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> While I agree the code is reasonable, I think an LWG issue is needed, because
> I
> don't think GCC's behaviour is in conflict with the standard.
I agree,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51619
Bug #: 51619
Summary: [c++0x] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with array class
member
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51619
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51620
Bug #: 51620
Summary: [c++0x] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with private
destructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51620
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, error-recovery,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48135
--- Comment #26 from Denis Excoffier 2011-12-19
07:36:33 UTC ---
Just for the record: gcc-4.7-20111210 works (with --enable-obsolete of course).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51621
Bug #: 51621
Summary: [c++0x] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with invalid
constexpr and array class member
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51621
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
79 matches
Mail list logo
