http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51627
Alexander Khrukin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andreast at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #18 from Ed Schouten 2011-12-30 10:47:25 UTC
---
Though there's nothing wrong with using __dead2, wouldn't it be better to use
__attribute__((__noreturn__) directly?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51711
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #19 from Andreas Tobler 2011-12-30
10:59:03 UTC ---
Works too:
+sed = "s/\\[\\[noreturn\\]\\]/__attribute__((__noreturn__))/";
+test_text = "#define _Noreturn __attribute__((__noreturn__))";
Looks less cryptic, iow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49358
--- Comment #2 from v.haisman at sh dot cvut.cz 2011-12-30 11:31:54 UTC ---
The problem is still there with GCC 4.7.0 20111203 snapshot.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51711
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-30 11:40:42 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 30 11:40:37 2011
New Revision: 182740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182740
Log:
2011-12-30 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51711
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-30 11:40:55 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 30 11:40:48 2011
New Revision: 182741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182741
Log:
2011-12-30 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51711
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51666
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-30
12:36:56 UTC ---
Ah yes, the latest note on DR 325 confirms the same issue exists with NSDMIs
http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#325
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51710
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-30
12:53:27 UTC ---
I think the code is invalid because the expression decltype(foo(e1,e2)) does
not occur in the "immediate context" of the function type
It works if you replace enable_if with
enable_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-30
13:10:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> doesn't handle non-timed waiting functions, but I'm not convinced they
> should block.
Reported as http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#2100
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51710
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27527
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||solodon at mail dot com
--- Comment #8 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51713
Bug #: 51713
Summary: Type mismatch for polymorphic dummy arguments
depending on "use" path
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51714
Bug #: 51714
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with
-std=c++11
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51472
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin 2011-12-30
15:40:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> hpux11 appears to be yet another OS that has sufficient quad
> support that gfortran detects a REAL(16) type, but the OS
> lacks the basic libm functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51715
Bug #: 51715
Summary: FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-13.c execution test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51716
Bug #: 51716
Summary: access to private member possible
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51717
Bug #: 51717
Summary: FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-14.c (test for excess
errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51715
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-12-30
16:06:33 UTC ---
This test also to be skipped 32-bit hpux as secondary symbols
are not overridden.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51625
--- Comment #3 from Peter Fraenkel 2011-12-30 17:14:38
UTC ---
Passing a double to a function expecting an int is very likely a bug and
definitely bad style. The fact that cmath contains overloaded math functions
with the same names as int math
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #20 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-30 17:26:30 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:45:38AM +, andreast at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> With the below 'hack' I'm able to bootstrap on x86_64-*-freebsd10.0.
> I'm not sure why my system does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51718
Bug #: 51718
Summary: Regular Expression doesn't match < literal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49826
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-30 17:42:56
UTC ---
Hmm, I am not that sure, if this is at all a bug, as linker can handle
undecorated stdcall-s quite well as import.
I am more curious for what purpose you actual need the @ decoration in
co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51456
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #21 from Andreas Tobler 2011-12-30
18:06:27 UTC ---
Neither bash nor GNU sed is installed on this machine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51719
Bug #: 51719
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: LHS in
noreturn call with -fpartial-inlining -fprofile-use
and exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51456
--- Comment #7 from Sergei Trofimovich 2011-12-30
18:51:35 UTC ---
Just for reference. Proposed fix in glibc:
http://old.nabble.com/-patch--handle-unaligned-arm-abs-relocs-td32964712.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #22 from Andreas Tobler 2011-12-30
18:54:53 UTC ---
On another machine:
egrep "SED|SHELL" *
config.log:SED='/usr/local/bin/gsed'
config.log:SHELL='/bin/sh'
Works too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-30 19:33:57 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 06:54:53PM +, andreast at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
>
> --- Comment #22 from Andreas Tobler 2011-12-30
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51720
Bug #: 51720
Summary: Build issue. stage1 ldflags not correctly used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51720
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51316
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-30 21:11:24 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 30 21:11:20 2011
New Revision: 182746
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182746
Log:
/c-family
2011-12-30 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51316
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2011-12-30 21:21:14 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I haven't ran all tests on it yet, but CSiBE shows average code size
> > reduction
> > of approx. -0.1% for -m4* with some code siz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51624
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |tree-optimization
Summary|[4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51692
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-30
22:57:15 UTC ---
I think the problem is that for BUILT_IN_FREE we don't mark_operand_necessary,
but then the BUILT_IN_CALLOC call is marked as necessary anyway through
mark_aliased_reaching_defs_necess
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51720
Ramón García changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51720
--- Comment #3 from Ramón García
2011-12-30 23:24:42 UTC ---
Note that I am reporting this bug to help other users have less problems. I
have fixed the issue for myself (the workaround, editing Makefile, is not too
difficult). I took the time to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51716
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49258
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48579
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51714
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
Bug #: 51721
Summary: -Warray-bounds false positives and inconsistencies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre 2011-12-31
01:50:59 UTC ---
Oops, gcc-snapshot was not GCC 4.6.2. Anyway, I get the same warnings with GCC
4.6.2 and gcc-snapshot, which is:
gcc (Debian 20111210-1) 4.7.0 20111210 (experimental) [trunk revisio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51714
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-31
01:55:04 UTC ---
This is enough:
template
void Foo()
{
true || !__extension__ ({ int verbose = 2; verbose <= 3; });
}
int main()
{
Foo();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51714
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-31
02:06:08 UTC ---
When tsubst_decl calls register_local_specialization the local_specializations
global is null.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51714
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
57 matches
Mail list logo
