http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-03
22:37:06 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Thu May 3 22:37:01 2012
New Revision: 187125
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187125
Log:
2012-05-04 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53222
Bug #: 53222
Summary: dejagnu trims leading whitespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-05-03 22:53:39
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 186568:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-04/msg00519.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52684
davem at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:04:35 UTC ---
A slightly improved patch is available here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg00429.html
but see the comments. I'm not sure I will be able soon enough to address the
no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
Bug #: 53223
Summary: [c++0x] auto&& and operator* don't mix inside
templates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:12:34 UTC ---
Don't we have something in Bugzilla about auto && ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-03
23:13:22 UTC ---
The second testcase is fixed now. The original testcase is much harder, but I
have a patch that follows the idea in comment #7. Let's see how it goes...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-05-03 23:21:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Don't we have something in Bugzilla about auto && ?
There's PR 52851, but that's supposedly fixed in 4_7-branch, and (unless I
messed up) this bug is pres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:21:28 UTC ---
I meant PR50473, may or may not be related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-05-03 23:25:54
UTC ---
PR51547 could be the same thing. I'll build and test trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-03
23:57:59 UTC ---
If we compare lines #12 and #13, there are subtle differences inside
reference_binding (called by initialize_reference, which produces the error):
for line #12, which is accepted, TYPE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-04
00:02:29 UTC ---
In short, the first argument of initialize_reference itself, the type of the
expression to be converted, has TYPE_REF_IS_RVALUE true for #12 and false for
#13, which should be equivale
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-04
00:05:15 UTC ---
Sorry, the first argument is the reference type to which the expression is
converted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-04
00:28:21 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 4 00:28:17 2012
New Revision: 187132
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187132
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-04
00:31:53 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 4 00:31:50 2012
New Revision: 187133
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187133
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #52 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-04
00:31:58 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri May 4 00:31:55 2012
New Revision: 187134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187134
Log:
2012-05-04 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-04
01:07:28 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri May 4 01:07:24 2012
New Revision: 187137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187137
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53166
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53224
Bug #: 53224
Summary: synthesized_method_walk returns uninitialized values
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53224
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-04
02:41:12 UTC ---
I think you need more context than just the above code.
Is *trivial_p and *constexpr_p checked when *deleted_p is true?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53177
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53224
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-04
02:43:22 UTC ---
synthesized_method_walk (type, kind, const_p, &raises, &trivial_p,
&deleted_p, &constexpr_p, false);
/* Don't bother marking a deleted constructor as con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-05-04 02:42:22
UTC ---
*** Bug 53177 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-04 02:52:32 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri May 4 02:52:27 2012
New Revision: 187139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187139
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/52804
* reloa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
Bug #: 53225
Summary: static operator new in multiple inheritance carries
incorrect type information for the class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
Thomas W. Lynch changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://stackoverflow.com/qu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-04
03:40:51 UTC ---
I don't think this is valid as the memory which is done after the operator new
is considered as unitialized.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
--- Comment #3 from Thomas W. Lynch 2012-05-04
05:20:46 UTC ---
> I don't think this is valid as the memory which is done after the operator new
is considered as unitialized.
The code does not use any uninitialized memory. It does not read the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression]|[4.8 Regression]
|gcc.tar
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
