[Bug c/53013] Inconsistent Behaviour with Left Shift Operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-16 22:09:26 UTC --- No, I would respectfully point out you're wrong, read the links in comment 1. Undefined behaviour doesn't just mean "the standard omits to mention what happens" it means *anything*

[Bug c/53013] Inconsistent Behaviour with Left Shift Operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-16 22:10:29 UTC --- >IOW, "undefined" means the standard deliberately refuses to make a statement about a real thing, it does not mean that the thing is not real. That is unspecified behavior and not und

[Bug target/52941] SH Target: Add support for movco.l / movli.l atomics on SH4A

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941 --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-04-16 22:37:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) The patch looks just fine. I don't mind whether those atomics are fully optimized or not ATM. Programs having atomics in the minor loop are pathological in

[Bug c/53013] Inconsistent Behaviour with Left Shift Operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013 --- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-16 22:44:46 UTC --- Since we keep repeating the same things over and over again, with the same links, and having the same arguments, I added a FAQ here: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#My_program_invo

[Bug c++/53012] unrelated friend operators in same namespace interfere with operator resolution outside of namespace

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53012 Adam H. Peterson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alphaetapi at hotmail dot

[Bug c/53013] Inconsistent Behaviour with Left Shift Operator.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53013 --- Comment #6 from john.stevens at f5 dot com 2012-04-16 23:23:41 UTC --- Ah, I see. We are using two different sets of pragmatics, and two different definitions of the inclusion class of the standard. Thanks, John S. -Original Message-

[Bug libstdc++/47762] FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_global_thread-1.cc execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-16 23:44:19 UTC --- > See if, by chance, libstdc++/52604 did the "miracle". I would like that ;) Yep! At revision 186396, I get for RUNTESTFLAGS="conformance.exp=deallocate_global_thread* ..." Ru

[Bug libstdc++/47762] FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_global_thread-1.cc execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-16 23:51:45 UTC --- Oh good. The I suppose that in the 4_7-branch the problem still exists: care to check if the same patchlet works there too?

[Bug target/52941] SH Target: Add support for movco.l / movli.l atomics on SH4A

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-04-17 00:03:19 UTC --- Created attachment 27173 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27173 Proposed patch (In reply to comment #6) > The patch looks just fine. I don't mind whether those atomics

[Bug libstdc++/52689] static linking with libstdc++ fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689 --- Comment #17 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-17 00:19:18 UTC --- Author: bkoz Date: Tue Apr 17 00:19:12 2012 New Revision: 186517 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186517 Log: 2012-04-16 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer PR bo

[Bug bootstrap/52840] bootstrap fails in libstdc++, missing compatibility.lo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52840 --- Comment #6 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-17 00:19:16 UTC --- Author: bkoz Date: Tue Apr 17 00:19:12 2012 New Revision: 186517 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186517 Log: 2012-04-16 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer PR boo

[Bug target/52941] SH Target: Add support for movco.l / movli.l atomics on SH4A

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941 --- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-04-17 00:54:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > Created attachment 27173 [details] > Proposed patch Looks even better. > Only one thing ... is it safe to do the > "@-r15", "@+r15" stuff in the atomic s

[Bug other/46770] Replace .ctors/.dtors with .init_array/.fini_array on targets supporting them

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770 Cary Coutant changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot

[Bug libstdc++/52689] static linking with libstdc++ fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689 --- Comment #18 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-17 02:21:29 UTC --- Patch plus revisions in gcc-4_7-branch.

[Bug c++/52008] [C++0x] ICE when adding partial specialization for variadic-templated structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17 02:29:47 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:43 2012 New Revision: 186521 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186521 Log: PR c++/52008 * pt.c (process_partial_specia

[Bug c++/38543] [C++0x] Cannot specialize variadic template function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17 02:29:54 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:51 2012 New Revision: 186522 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186522 Log: PR c++/38543 * pt.c (determine_specializati

[Bug c++/50830] [c++0x] Variadic template, inner class error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830 --- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17 02:29:40 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:35 2012 New Revision: 186520 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186520 Log: PR c++/50830 * pt.c (convert_template_argum

[Bug c++/50303] [C++0x] Segfault with variadic template template parameters

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50303 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-17 02:29:32 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Apr 17 02:29:27 2012 New Revision: 186519 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186519 Log: PR c++/50303 * pt.c (tsubst_pack_expansion)

[Bug c/53005] GCC moves the called C function address and parameters to the wrong stack position, when making C-style calling of C functions in a C function with inline assembly code.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005 --- Comment #6 from Lili Zhao 2012-04-17 02:43:31 UTC --- Thanks all the same! I'll try on the latest gcc version to see if the bug reproduce. Thank you! 2012/4/16 manu at gcc dot gnu.org > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53005 > >

[Bug libffi/53014] New: [4.8 Regression] libffi failures on mips64-linux-gnu with soft-float

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53014 Bug #: 53014 Summary: [4.8 Regression] libffi failures on mips64-linux-gnu with soft-float Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug libffi/53014] [4.8 Regression] libffi failures on mips64-linux-gnu with soft-float

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53014 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||mips64-linux-gnu Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/38543] [C++0x] Cannot specialize variadic template function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/53015] New: free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup is back

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015 Bug #: 53015 Summary: free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup is back Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

<    1   2