http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53889
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-05
07:35:17 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Oct 5 07:35:12 2012
New Revision: 192114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192114
Log:
PR other/53889
* config/i386/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54819
Bug #: 54819
Summary: Microblaze: When enabling position independent code
the linker does not recognize the object file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54819
--- Comment #1 from qball at sarine dot nl 2012-10-05 08:30:50 UTC ---
Without -fpic the code compiles and runs correctly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Bug #: 54820
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ada: cannot find -lstdc++ since 4.8.0
20121002
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54821
Bug #: 54821
Summary: Microblaze: Position independent code for byte access
is incorrect.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54818
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54822
Bug #: 54822
Summary: OpenMP - Firstprivate optional dummy arguments crash
if not present
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54818
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-05 09:09:39 UTC ---
Reduced test case:
implicit none
real :: name = 5.
print *, transfer(name,"a")//"xyz"
end
Fails here with 4.7 and trunk, but works with 4.3. Haven't tried othe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54810
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-05
09:37:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 5 09:37:25 2012
New Revision: 192115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192115
Log:
PR tree-optimization/54810
* tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54822
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54822
--- Comment #2 from Roger Ferrer Ibanez 2012-10-05
09:53:36 UTC ---
> The OpenMP standard says that the firstprivate private copy of the var is
> initialized (for non-pointers) using intrinsic assignment,
Oops. I tried also with Intel F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54818
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54811
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-05
10:11:25 UTC ---
Testing
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-live.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-live.c (revision 192114)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-live.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54818
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-05
10:20:49 UTC ---
AFAICT the problem occurs in 64 bit mode, but not in 32 one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54808
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54823
Bug #: 54823
Summary: string literal characters not constant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54823
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-05
11:29:49 UTC ---
*" " is not a constant expression according to the C standard.
The standard says "An implementation may accept other forms of constant
expressions" so ICC is allowed to acce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54823
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-05
11:34:09 UTC ---
6.7.2.2 "The expression that defines the value of an enumeration constant shall
be an integer constant expression that has a value representable as an int."
See 6.6 for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-05
11:43:43 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 5 11:43:38 2012
New Revision: 192119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192119
Log:
PR tree-optimization/33763
* t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
Bug #: 54824
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in verify_loop_structure with LTO
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54823
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Freundt 2012-10-05
11:46:20 UTC ---
I'm more or less referring to the internals, why is it a constant expression in
the first case, but not treated as an integer constant expression.
Also, according to the r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2012-10-05 11:47:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 28362
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28362
Testcase
GCC 20120923 (r191654) - fails, 20120916 (r191367) - ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54811
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-05
11:48:30 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 5 11:48:27 2012
New Revision: 192120
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192120
Log:
2012-10-05 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54811
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54823
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54823
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Freundt 2012-10-05
12:45:45 UTC ---
Ok, I see. I assume, there's no plans on widening the allowed expressions for
constant integers?
It's autogenerated code a la:
#define foo "bar"
(foo)[1] * 0x55 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54821
--- Comment #1 from qball at sarine dot nl 2012-10-05 13:17:17 UTC ---
For 4.6.2 (xilinx) this seems to fix the code generation:
mb_gnu/src/gcc/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.c
temp/mb_gnu/src/gcc/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.c
@@ -55
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53638
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43566
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
13:43:12 UTC ---
Jakub?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43566
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
13:46:27 UTC ---
(as it happens, yesterday I noticed myself this behavior. It seems weird, but
maybe there is a rationale for it)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45065
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Bug #: 54825
Summary: ICE with vector extension
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #1 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-10-05
13:58:21 UTC ---
In case the version number isn't making this clear, I tested this with the
current mainline code. 4.7 probably won't work at all since some of the
features used have been adde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46147
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdsandiford at googlemail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-10-05
13:59:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28363
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28363
Reproducer
Why didn't BZ add the file?...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
14:10:11 UTC ---
Thanks a lot Daniel for the clarification. Thus I understand that currently GCC
is accepting *all sorts* of reinterpret_cast uses in constexpr functions,
right? That is, also th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49976
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-05 14:17:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Thus I understand that currently GCC is accepting *all sorts* of
> reinterpret_cast uses in constexpr functions, right? That is, also those with
> unspeci
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-05
14:28:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 28364
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28364
patch
patch I am testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-05 14:29:07
UTC ---
Hmm, how should I compile the code?
I tried with g++ bug.cc -std=c++11 but that fails because of typeof (you want
decltype instead). With -std=gnu++11, I get an error that "the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50893
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-05 14:32:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Forget my comment, apparently Richard found the bug before I could even read
the report... :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54806
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54826
Bug #: 54826
Summary: gdb test case failure (bs15503) due to gaps in lexical
block
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54806
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-05
14:58:31 UTC ---
Also note from https://trac.macports.org/ticket/36093 that it appears that
MacPorts is playing games with the libstdc++ which FSF gcc uses. This appears
to be instigated by https
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54775
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50893
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-05 15:00:34 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 5 15:00:26 2012
New Revision: 192131
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192131
Log:
2012-10-05 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50893
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23055
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Kn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #11 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-10-05
15:12:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 28364 [details]
> patch
>
> patch I am testing.
This seems to fix the problem for me, even with the original code and not t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54194
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50080
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #32 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-05
16:20:59 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri Oct 5 16:20:44 2012
New Revision: 192132
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192132
Log:
2012-10-05 Marc Glisse
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #34 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
16:24:57 UTC ---
Looks like you forgot the include/c_global/cstdlib bits?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54194
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-05
16:26:22 UTC ---
Using warning_at is an improvement, yes.
It still doesn't clarify where the parentheses should go, or why the
parentheses are suggested. This is why clang changed the text of t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54194
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
16:32:02 UTC ---
Sure. Since the patch simply using warning_at is trivial and anyway
warn_about_parentheses is currently shared with the C front end, I propose to
just do that for 4.8.0. I'm att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54194
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
16:32:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28365
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28365
Tested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #35 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-05
16:33:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> Looks like you forgot the include/c_global/cstdlib bits?
Hmm right, I patched the wrong directory. Maybe c_std/cstdlib should be
removed? It looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #36 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
16:39:27 UTC ---
What I know is that Linux by default uses c_global. There is configury
selecting the directory, but I didn't write the logic, Benjamin did, frankly I
don't know which specific
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54194
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-05
16:41:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Tell me what you think. If you disagree, no problem,
> I can move to something else and completely delay this issue to a later time.
Me? I am certain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54194
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
16:47:19 UTC ---
Eh, eh ;) Good, good, I only wanted to make sure we are on the same page on the
issue. For now I'm sending to the mailing list what I have, then we'll see if
we can improve on i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #37 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-05
16:47:33 UTC ---
I see the following in cstdlib:
namespace std
{
#if !_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_LONG_LONG_DYNAMIC
// types
using std::lldiv_t;
Is there a particular reason to import stuff in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #38 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
16:57:56 UTC ---
Eh, eh, hard to reconstruct now what happened at the time. Looks like an svn
pasto or a plain pasto. I suppose that entire block can be removed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #39 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
17:02:34 UTC ---
Probably a plain pasto of mine dating back to when was copying stuff from tr1/*
in namespace std::tr1 to std:: protected by __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__. Looks
like I didn't noti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #40 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-05
17:04:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> Eh, eh, hard to reconstruct now what happened at the time. Looks like an svn
> pasto or a plain pasto. I suppose that entire block can be removed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #41 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
17:08:52 UTC ---
Remove it, remove it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51412
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54827
Bug #: 54827
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 70% compile time regression building
builtin-sched.c from Linux's perf
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54806
Jeremy Huddleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeremyhu at macports dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54827
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-10-05 17:41:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28366
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28366
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54806
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy Huddleston 2012-10-05
17:47:02 UTC ---
The one build config change on MP side that accompanied the version bump was
that we now build with --enable-libstdcxx-time for
http://trac.macports.org/ticket/36364
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54827
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-10-05 17:54:57 UTC ---
Caused by var-tracking. With-fno-var-tracking everything is fine again:
% time gcc -fno-var-tracking -w -c -O3 -ggdb3 builtin-sched.i
gcc -fno-var-tracking -w -c -O3 -g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54827
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simonb at google dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54507
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||54402
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54731
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51742
Thomas Lofgren changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spamtlo at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #42 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-05
19:10:27 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri Oct 5 19:10:22 2012
New Revision: 192138
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192138
Log:
2012-10-05 Marc Glisse
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54519
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-05
19:24:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 5 19:24:38 2012
New Revision: 192139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192139
Log:
PR debug/54519
* ipa-split.c (s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51490
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51556
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52174
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
Severity|trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52581
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-05
19:35:36 UTC ---
I'm not in a position to test, but write_generic in module.c makes no effort to
traverse the tree in a left to right order, i.e. the line
write_generic ((gfc_symtree *)st->right);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52792
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cgf at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52791
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cgf at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53845
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|paol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-05 21:00:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Anyway, here, I only wanted to ask you if this is a show-stopper for your
> work,
> because I don't know how much time it will take.
While I think that t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-05
21:08:04 UTC ---
Of course it should be fixed, it *must* be fixed, actually! And it's really
annoying that this bug affecting private defaulted destructors (which, I bet,
aren't that common for
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
