http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51606
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51606
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51603
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-19
09:23:20 UTC ---
Works for me as well (checked on trunk and the 4.6 branch).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51601
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51599
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51596
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51597
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51595
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51581
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51477
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-12-19
09:47:51 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Dec 19 09:47:46 2011
New Revision: 182474
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182474
Log:
PR c++/51477 - ICE with invalid NSDMI
gcc/cp/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51477
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
Pierre Ossman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ossman at cendio dot se
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51532
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab 2011-12-19
10:14:17 UTC ---
Author: schwab
Date: Mon Dec 19 10:14:13 2011
New Revision: 182475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182475
Log:
PR target/51532
* config/m68k/m68k.h (FL_CAS, TAR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51532
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51619
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-19 10:23:51
UTC ---
Well, I wouldn't say that this was rude. The issue here is most likely, that
the runtime DLLs by gcc aren't in search-path when you are trying to execute
your built application. But this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51609
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
10:43:22 UTC ---
Yes, this was an intentional choice (as I described in message
c++std-lib-30840) to ensure the system doesn't get killed by a fork bomb, e.g.
writing a parallel sort algorithm using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
--- Comment #2 from Kiskunsag 2011-12-19 10:54:50 UTC
---
Created attachment 26137
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26137
file for Error message by compilation
Error message by compilation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
--- Comment #3 from Kiskunsag 2011-12-19 10:57:02 UTC
---
Created attachment 26138
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26138
Breaked assembler source
Breaked by error assembler source of converted JAVA jar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
Kiskunsag changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
10:58:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, this was an intentional choice (as I described in message
> c++std-lib-30840) to ensure the system doesn't get killed by a fork bomb, e.g.
> writing a p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51601
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
11:13:25 UTC ---
That would require a global integer somewhere to count the threads, which would
probably have to be kept forever to maintain ABI compatibility. If I had time
to implement a temporar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-19
11:16:11 UTC ---
*** Bug 51601 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51601
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51328
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=51605
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-19
11:39:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 26139
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26139
Draft patch (for the rejects-valid part, not for the ICE)
Draft patch, which allows again
ptr => a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
11:51:52 UTC ---
Could you expand on what you mean by "no attached synchronization"?
If a global future visible to all threads stores a deferred function then it
still needs synchronization to ensur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
Bug #: 51622
Summary: GCC generates bad code that generate big executable
sizes when using _Decimal*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
12:11:33 UTC ---
on Mon Dec 19 2011, "redi at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
> 11:51:52 UTC ---
> Cou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
--- Comment #1 from Domingo Alvarez 2011-12-19
12:17:28 UTC ---
If code generation is solved probably we can have better results with the
following:
lua 5.1.4 with double -> 150KB
lua 5.1.4 with _Decimal64 -> 2.4MB *with ***bad code generation
l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
Peter Åstrand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
--- Comment #7 from Peter Åstrand 2011-12-19
12:24:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 26141
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26141
gcc-4.4.3-threads.patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
--- Comment #8 from Peter Åstrand 2011-12-19
12:25:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 26142
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26142
gcc-4.5.2-threads.patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51003
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-12-19 13:05:34 UTC ---
On 18-Dec-11, at 9:21 PM, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-11/msg00051.html
>
> hpux11 appears to be yet another OS that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab 2011-12-19
13:12:31 UTC ---
Author: schwab
Date: Mon Dec 19 13:12:26 2011
New Revision: 182478
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182478
Log:
Check for warning flags without no- prefix
confi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
13:13:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm confused. IIUC even shared_futures aren't supposed to be accessed
> concurrently from multiple threads. Why would multiple threads be
> accessing a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-19
13:17:15 UTC ---
Dan: Your program should work (with 4.6.2 - or with 4.7 + my patch) if you
either change either the SELECT TYPE label or the subroutine name from
"integer_or_logical" to something else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 13:17:23 UTC ---
> given this definition, maybe insn 141 should be marked as frame-related, since
> it restores a reg in the epilogue.
It seems to be the other way round: insn 141 is ignored
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
13:24:16 UTC ---
Not a problem; thanks for looking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 13:23:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> This is the patch which I am testing:
> Index: genattrtab.c
> ===
> --- genattrtab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-19
13:39:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Dec 19 13:37:06 2011
New Revision: 182479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182479
Log:
2011-12-19 Richard Guenther
PR lto/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51606
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-19
14:22:36 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 19 14:22:29 2011
New Revision: 182480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182480
Log:
PR middle-end/51590
PR tree-optimization/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-19
14:22:36 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 19 14:22:29 2011
New Revision: 182480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182480
Log:
PR middle-end/51590
PR tree-optimization/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51596
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-19
14:24:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 19 14:24:29 2011
New Revision: 182481
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182481
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51596
* tree-cfg.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51328
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-19
14:29:44 UTC ---
Well, rejects it a instantiation time.
Thus I guess rejecting it earlier is fine, but we don't want to misled people
by saying that 'typename T::~T' would be ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
--- Comment #4 from Domingo Alvarez 2011-12-19
14:30:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 26143
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26143
Another program to demonstrate gcc bad code generation
On the previous example program my conclusi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-19
14:33:21 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 19 14:33:18 2011
New Revision: 182483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182483
Log:
2011-12-19 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
--- Comment #5 from Domingo Alvarez 2011-12-19
14:34:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Which architecture are you compiling for?
gcc mingw32 4.6.1 32bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
--- Comment #6 from Domingo Alvarez 2011-12-19
14:40:45 UTC ---
Rewrite expected executable sizes with a realistic better code generation by
gcc.
If code generation is solved probably we can have better results with the
following:
lua 5.1.4 wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50012
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-19
14:43:05 UTC ---
This has been introduced with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01402.html
which has been written as a better way of:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01393.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-19
15:30:29 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Dec 19 15:30:23 2011
New Revision: 182484
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182484
Log:
2011-12-19 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51366
--- Comment #5 from Denis Excoffier 2011-12-19
15:31:46 UTC ---
Reduced test case is:
% cat exclude.c
int version;
int zz1(char *);
static void zz2(int flags)
{
static int initialized = 0;
char xx[4096];
if (initialized)
return;
initializ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51619
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-19
15:38:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 19 15:38:06 2011
New Revision: 182485
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182485
Log:
PR c++/51619
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_vec_in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51623
Bug #: 51623
Summary: PowerPC section type conflict
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51623
--- Comment #1 from Chung-Lin Tang 2011-12-19
15:44:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 26145
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26145
Minimal testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51619
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[c++0x] [4.6/4.7|[c++0x] [4.6 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
--- Comment #11 from Dan Nagle 2011-12-19 15:51:40
UTC ---
Hi,
I can confirm that changing the label of the select type to
integer_or_logical_or_error
removes the ICE.
I did so at lines 9325 and 13536 in the original source.
The new label is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-19
15:57:06 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Dec 19 15:57:02 2011
New Revision: 182487
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182487
Log:
2011-12-19 Richard Guenther
PR lto/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51328
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-12-19
15:58:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thus I guess rejecting it earlier is fine, but we don't want to misled people
> by saying that 'typename T::~T' would be ok.
Agreed. I would expect it to b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51553
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-19 16:40:33 UTC ---
> --- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
> 20:05:16 UTC ---
> Can you try the patch in PR 51471#c11 ? That patch fixes most of the
> maybe_record_trace_st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-19
16:47:35 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 19 16:47:28 2011
New Revision: 182488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182488
Log:
2011-12-19 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51624
Bug #: 51624
Summary: [4.6/4.7 regression] Assert_Failure atree.adb:808 on
IRIX 6.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51625
Bug #: 51625
Summary: -Wconversion should be on by default, or at least
included in -Wall
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51328
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48743
--- Comment #6 from Quentin Neill 2011-12-19
17:57:42 UTC ---
Author: qneill
Date: Mon Dec 19 17:57:32 2011
New Revision: 182489
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182489
Log:
2011-12-19 Quentin Neill
2011-12-19 Quentin Ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51626
Bug #: 51626
Summary: [4.6 Regression] [C++0x] can't use C++98 allocators
with -std=c++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50722
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2011-12-19 18:33:07
UTC ---
Yes, this was failing on ia64 hpux as well as hppa hpux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51626
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-19
18:38:56 UTC ---
Bah, in my opinion it's late to attempt sophisticated things in 4.6, either we
can do something minimal or we should just tell people that in 4.6 a C++0x
container wants a C++0x alloca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51605
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-19
18:41:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> subroutine foo
> BLOCK_NAME: block
> end block BLOCK_NAME
> end subroutine foo
> subroutine BLOCK_NAME()
> end subroutine BLOCK_NAME
The pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48743
Quentin Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qneill at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-19
18:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I believe this is just because of very weird target avr stuff, either it is a
> target bug that can be fixed up in the backend somehow, or perhaps would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51626
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
18:57:45 UTC ---
I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately a C++11 allocator isn't required
to provide a construct member at all. 17.6.3.5 p5 shows a minimal C++11
allocator, and that won't work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51626
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
19:04:53 UTC ---
Unfortunately either of those would cause a regression for PR 32618
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51626
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51580
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou 2011-12-19
19:17:15 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Dec 19 19:17:10 2011
New Revision: 182491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182491
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51580
* gnat.dg/sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51580
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51411
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-12-19
19:31:23 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Dec 19 19:31:17 2011
New Revision: 182492
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182492
Log:
PR middle-end/51411
* trans-mem.c (ipa_tm_
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
