http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51681
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51700
Bug #: 51700
Summary: Cannot subscript packed vector type in g++ (works in
C)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51699
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-29
10:15:31 UTC ---
Unfortunately rope is largely unmaintained. Assuming these issues are easy to
handle somebody with access to clang should do the work.
Note: before touching the library at all, the C+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51700
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51701
Bug #: 51701
Summary: Remove reference to Henry Suter's RWLock from
documentation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50988
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
Bug #: 51705
Summary: Build infrastructure should not use -std=c++0x until
g++ properly supports it
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51700
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51704
Bug #: 51704
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: vector VEC(vec_void_p,base)
index domain error, in vinfo_for_stmt at
tree-vectorizer.h:620 with -O3 -fno-tree-copy-prop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51701
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-29
15:31:05 UTC ---
For the record the code can be found at
http://web.archive.org/web/20070810183256/http://suter.home.cern.ch/suter/RWLock.html
but I agree that referring to it from the libstdc++ manu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-29
19:34:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Essentially GCC is free to announce __cplusplus == 201103L for its
> experimental
> C++11 support, but the C++11 support should not be used during its own
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24163
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fedorabugmail at yahoo dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51699
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-29
14:54:18 UTC ---
Oh very well, thanks Jon, indeed now I remember that work.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51702
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51701
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|ASSIGN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #2 from Ed Schouten 2011-12-29 19:42:12 UTC ---
Well, there is the difference. g++ may support C++11 constructs and libstdc++
should be able to use them, but it's wrong to announce __cplusplus == 201103L
to the operating system's heade
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicholasbishop at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51702
Bug #: 51702
Summary: Several of the vector tests in gcc.dg fail on
powerpc-linux in 32-bit mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51699
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-29
15:22:08 UTC ---
If you have the time, seems indeed a good idea.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51699
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-29
14:35:18 UTC ---
I think there is a front-end bug about this, I'll try to find it.
I've encountered it myself when compiling code with Clang and needed to fix
code that G++ accepts in order to find n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51701
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-29
15:41:45 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Dec 29 15:41:37 2011
New Revision: 182724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182724
Log:
PR libstdc++/51701
* doc/xml/manual/extens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51608
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont 2011-12-29
17:58:57 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Dec 29 17:58:51 2011
New Revision: 182727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182727
Log:
2011-12-29 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51699
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-29
15:08:09 UTC ---
I'm tempted to backport the library fixes, as I've been frustrated by
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702256 and would like to see a
working combination of clang and libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51701
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51699
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51703
Bug #: 51703
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/io_real_boz_[345].f90 -O (test for
excess errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51569
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=51704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
--- Comment #1 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-29 20:02:15 UTC ---
Here is a correct testcase for this bug.
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-std=c++0x" }
enum { A = 1 };
struct T
{
int i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6, i7;
enum E2 : in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
Chris Jefferson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at bubblescope dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51623
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2011-12-29
21:13:15 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Dec 29 21:13:10 2011
New Revision: 182731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182731
Log:
Update PR 51623, to eliminate checks against
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-29 21:27:18 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:56:20PM +, chris at bubblescope dot net wrote:
> Better take out C++03 support as well, seeing as there is no support for the
> 'export' keyword.
>
> But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-29
21:39:12 UTC ---
So change component to 'bootstrap' and get a FreeBSD maintainer to update
fixincludes and/or tell the FreeBSD libc team to test with esoteric third-party
compilers such as the little
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51608
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #6 from Ed Schouten 2011-12-29 21:59:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> So change component to 'bootstrap' and get a FreeBSD maintainer to update
> fixincludes and/or tell the FreeBSD libc team to test with esoteric
> third-party
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-29 22:06:59 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 09:39:12PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-29
> 21:39
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51706
Bug #: 51706
Summary: default copy assignment incorrectly deleted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #8 from Chris Jefferson 2011-12-29
22:21:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:56:20PM +, chris at bubblescope dot net wrote:
> > Better take out C++03 support as well, seeing as there is no support for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-freebsd
Component|libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-29 22:29:55 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:21:35PM +, chris at bubblescope dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
>
> --- Comment #8 from Chris Jefferson 2011-12-29
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #11 from Ed Schouten 2011-12-29 22:40:26 UTC
---
But this has nothing to do with FreeBSD specifically. It will apply to
basically any operating system in the future.
Say, GCC 4.8 (late 2012?) will support [[noreturn]] properly and so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-29 23:05:25 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:26:52PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
>
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Thanks for the condescendi
pends
> on it.
*ahem* It will prevent you using 4.7.0 20111229 (experimental) - this problem
doesn't exist with any released version. We can get it fixed (FreeBSD is a
primary platform after all, so this should be P2 or even P1) if we identify the
problem correctly. I believe the right
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #14 from Ed Schouten 2011-12-29 23:30:19 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Feel free to keep
> arguing otherwise, but wherever the problem lies, it's not that libstdc++ uses
> C++11 features
Steve and I merely have our doubts about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-29 23:55:20 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:30:19PM +, ed at 80386 dot nl wrote:
>
> But this discussion starts to turn into an infinite loop. Doesn't Bugzilla
> allow a bug reporter to unsubscribe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
Harald Klimach changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at klimachs dot de
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51707
Bug #: 51707
Summary: [c++11] constexpr constructor cannot initialize const
reference member
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51708
Bug #: 51708
Summary: SH Target: SHAD / SHLD constant not CSE-ed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo 2011-12-30 02:14:00 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Specifying -fno-tree-forwprop doesn't seem to have any effect on these
> > cases.
>
> For that function, -fdump-tree-all shows th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51709
Bug #: 51709
Summary: armv7 target is not using unaligned access to packed
fields sometimes (halfwords, loads?)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51709
--- Comment #1 from John A. Van Boxtel 2011-12-30
02:27:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26201
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26201
gcc_armv7_unaligned_test.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51709
--- Comment #2 from John A. Van Boxtel 2011-12-30
02:27:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 26202
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26202
gcc_armv7_unaligned_test.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51709
--- Comment #3 from John A. Van Boxtel 2011-12-30
02:28:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 26203
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26203
gcc_armv7_unaligned_test.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-12-30
03:24:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> If OK, I'd like to change it from target PR to middle-end PR.
Sure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51710
Bug #: 51710
Summary: decltype and SFINAE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Severity|normal
pport [[noreturn]] properly and some OS
> > vendor
> > decides to start using it by the year 2016 in its header files. That will
> > still
> > prevent you from compiling GCC 4.7 then, in case some piece of software
> > depends
> > on it.
>
> *ahem* It w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51711
Bug #: 51711
Summary: regex.h contains incorrect code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39621
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|NE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51614
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51711
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51625
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-30
06:16:22 UTC ---
I don't we (GCC) want -Wconversion turned on by -Wall or by default.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/NewWconversion .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51625
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51627
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-30
06:20:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> By the way, calling these issues "Regression" doesn't seem appropriate:
> granted, 4.5 may have parsed some constrexpr usages, but didn't have any
> semantic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51676
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-30
06:33:44 UTC ---
Not all places have both a definition and a declaration. Also we merge the
definition and the declaration giving the DECL internally as just the
definition's location.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51686
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
Bug #: 51712
Summary: -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of
implementation-defined signedness
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Statu
73 matches
Mail list logo
