http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-04
08:46:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Or at least the other compilers and the other gfortran modes did not need to
> break these tricks yet.
The issue is essentially that GCC will optimize in
s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-04 09:32:28 UTC ---
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-03
> 18:06:28 UTC -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-04 09:43:13 UTC ---
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
>
> --- Comment #16 from davidxl 2012-01-04
> 00:28:55 UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49651
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
09:47:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 4 09:47:12 2012
New Revision: 182865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182865
Log:
2012-01-04 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49651
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
09:50:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 4 09:50:13 2012
New Revision: 182866
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182866
Log:
2012-01-04 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
Bug #: 51749
Summary: Including pollute global namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
10:16:56 UTC ---
bits/stl_algo.h ends up including cstdlib.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51745
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-04
10:25:45 UTC ---
Thus I understand you are new to GCC, because the problem was already there in,
eg, gcc3, and very likely the original HP/SGI STL! It's because of the use of
rand(), or a similar syste
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46356
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-04
10:25:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> the reduced one of comment 2 still fails with:
> internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_descriptor_offset, at
> fortran/trans-array.c:210
The same error mes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51744
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, lto
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51743
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
10:34:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Uh... can you even force ia64-linux to run in big-endian mode?
> Just because you said -mbig-endian doesn't mean it is. I don't
> see anything in the lin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51742
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-04
10:40:35 UTC ---
Looks latent before to me.
The issue is that when cselib_process_insn for
(insn 56 51 60 4 (cond_exec (eq (reg:CC 24 cc)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(set (mem:QI (plus:SI (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51750
Bug #: 51750
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: 25_algorithms/heap/moveable*.cc
execution test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51750
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-04
11:04:41 UTC ---
We can always work around this as in (completely untested):
--- gcc/dwarf2out.c2012-01-03 16:22:48.794866121 +0100
+++ gcc/dwarf2out.c2012-01-04 11:50:30.516022278 +0100
@@ -8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26214|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51734
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-01-04
11:41:11 UTC ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Jan 4 11:41:06 2012
New Revision: 182868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182868
Log:
config/
2012-01-04 Andreas Krebbel
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51734
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-04
11:51:40 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Jan 4 11:51:37 2012
New Revision: 182869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182869
Log:
2012-01-04 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/49693
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
--- Comment #40 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-04
11:49:35 UTC ---
Great! If all existing code is accepted with a warning that provides backwards
compatibility, but also allows conforming code to correctly overload on
language linkage - that sounds
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49651
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
11:54:25 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 4 11:54:18 2012
New Revision: 182870
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182870
Log:
2012-01-04 Richard Guenther
Backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49651
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51751
Bug #: 51751
Summary: COMPLEX16 tests fail in Lapack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51064
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
Wolfgang Bangerth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bangerth at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #42 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
12:49:47 UTC ---
It's interesting that with a simplified testcase
struct T;
static T *m ()
{
static T *d;
return d;
}
int
fn ()
{
m ();
}
int main() {}
The C++ frontend with -fwhole-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
--- Comment #43 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-04
12:51:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> Great! If all existing code is accepted with a warning that provides backwards
> compatibility, but also allows conforming code to correctly overload on
> lan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-04
12:57:28 UTC ---
I agree that ignoring the bug or adding sorry refusing -fno-merge-constants
-flto is probably only way to deal with it in 4.7.
If we go the way translating into initialized vars, we pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
--- Comment #44 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-04
13:00:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> still I agree this would be terribly annoying for
> everybody.
Not everybody, only those who don't also use another compiler that already
diagnoses it ;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-04 13:02:26 UTC ---
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-04
> 12:57:28 UTC -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
--- Comment #45 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-04
13:06:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> Well, perhaps something like:
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> extern "C++" int __REDIRECT_NTH (pthread_create, (pthread_t *__restrict
> __newthread, const pthread_attr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-04 13:14:17
UTC ---
> > In general it would be very useful to have pass tagging ADDR_EXPRs on
> > whether
> > the address of object taken needs to be unique or can change freely. This
> > would
> > be us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51750
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
13:25:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 4 13:25:28 2012
New Revision: 182872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182872
Log:
2012-01-04 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51750
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #28 from Richard G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-04 13:33:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #28 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
> 13:30:21 UTC ---
> Was the patch installed?
Unfortunately not, I'm currently applying it to my private tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-04
13:40:19 UTC ---
Oh, and why is this a regression?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51565
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51613
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51614
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51694
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin 2012-01-04
14:04:29 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Jan 4 14:04:24 2012
New Revision: 182874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182874
Log:
PR fortran/50981
* trans.h (struct gfc_ss_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51752
Bug #: 51752
Summary: trans-mem: publication safety violated
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-04
14:18:26 UTC ---
OK, it is bug in estimate_edge_devirt_benefit that cause overall function size
to go bellow 0. I am looking into the fix.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
--- Comment #5 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-04 14:20:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> they could have unwanted
> side-effects (reading uninitialized memory, division by zero, producing NaNs
> etc.) that the debugger might complain about loudl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2012-01-04
14:20:24 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Jan 4 14:20:17 2012
New Revision: 182875
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182875
Log:
PR fortran/50981
* trans-array.h (gfc_walk_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51696
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-04
14:32:59 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jan 4 14:32:54 2012
New Revision: 182876
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182876
Log:
PR middle-end/51696
* trans-mem.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51696
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin 2012-01-04
14:36:38 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Revision: 182875
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Wed Jan 4 14:36:34 2012
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50998
Michal Malecki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ethouris at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51212
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-04
14:53:44 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jan 4 14:53:30 2012
New Revision: 182877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182877
Log:
PR middle-end/51212
* opts.c (fini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-04
14:57:34 UTC ---
Estimate_edge_devirt_benefit seems to not make much of sense in mixing the
effects of inlining into the local size. Unforutnately we don't really have
much infrastructure for similar cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin 2012-01-04
15:06:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Fixed on trunk (4.7), backport bending.
s/bending/pending/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51002
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51345
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51648
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-04
16:38:37 UTC ---
That delta script had a typo (was using gcc.o instead of gccmy.o), thus the
resulting preprocessed file is irrelevant.
Here is an actually reduced testcase:
rm -f pr51648-1.gcda pr5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51064
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-04 16:40:01 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jan 4 16:39:53 2012
New Revision: 182880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182880
Log:
/cp
2012-01-04 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51064
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51648
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-04
16:39:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 26240
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26240
pr51648-1.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26163|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51163
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-04
17:02:03 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jan 4 17:01:50 2012
New Revision: 182882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182882
Log:
Add PR reference.
+PR other/51163
+PR oth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51164
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-04
17:02:05 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jan 4 17:01:50 2012
New Revision: 182882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182882
Log:
Add PR reference.
+PR other/51163
+PR oth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51163
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51164
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #18 from davidxl 2012-01-04 17:11:26
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
> >
> > --- Comment #16 from davidxl 2012-01-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51753
Bug #: 51753
Summary: Many gcc.dg/simultate-thread tests fail on Solaris
10+/x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51754
Bug #: 51754
Summary: [OOP] ICE on valid with class arrays
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-suse-linux|powerpc64-suse-linux,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50127
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
--- Comment #7 from Harald Klimach 2012-01-04
18:41:08 UTC ---
Thanks a lot!
Just ran the gcc trunk over my code, and the annoying warnings are gone.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51755
Bug #: 51755
Summary: -Wconversion generates false warnings when the ternary
operator is used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.2
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51755
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-04
19:02:33 UTC ---
also PR 51294
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46356
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||51754
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51752
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Peslyak
2012-01-04 19:39:26 UTC ---
I wrote and ran some scripts to test many versions/snapshots of gcc. It turns
out that 4.6-20100703 (oldest 4.6 snapshot available for FTP) was already
affected by this regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26239|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-04
19:58:07 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 4 19:58:03 2012
New Revision: 182886
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182886
Log:
PR debug/51695
* dwarf2out.c (output_loc_li
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
