http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54843
Bug #: 54843
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ada bootstrap failure on
arm-linux-gnueabi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
Bug #: 54844
Summary: ice tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:12352
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54845
Bug #: 54845
Summary: [trunk/gcc/c-family/c-ada-spec.c:3114]: (error) Buffer
is accessed out of bounds.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54794
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-07
10:26:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for any help in reducing this (very likely some random BLOCK again) ;)
> If you don't end up with a significantly smaller testcase please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54843
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54806
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36275
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jaydub66 at gmail dot com |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54233
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54846
Bug #: 54846
Summary: -ftrapv doesn't work in 64-bit mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
Bug #: 54847
Summary: --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes non-functional on darwin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54848
Bug #: 54848
Summary: -ftrapv doesn't work when assigning to an integer with
smaller size
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54846
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54846
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-07
16:54:01 UTC ---
Spoke too soon, we don't have these definition for any of *di* functions, nor
COMPAT_DIMODE_TRAPPING_ARITHMETIC. Sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-07 17:10:13
UTC ---
Shouldn't vt_get_decl_and_offset handle:
vt_get_decl_and_offset (rtl=0x71abad60, declp=0x7fffda00,
offsetp=0x7fffda08)
at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/var-tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-07
17:31:18 UTC ---
Isn't that odd, the documentation explains pretty well why.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeremyhu at macports d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54849
Bug #: 54849
Summary: Override specifier with trailing return type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54849
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-07
18:02:30 UTC ---
As far as Darwin is concerned, simply, somebody knowing the target well has to
work out the details. So far, we only made sure that things work reasonably
well on GNU/Linux mach
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54849
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-07 18:35:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> As far as Darwin is concerned, simply, somebody knowing the target well has to
> work out the details. So far, we only made sure that thin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-07
18:50:09 UTC ---
As far as I can see the only usage of nanosleep() in libstdc++-v3 is in this
section of the include/std/thread header...
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_NANOSLEEP
/// sleep_for
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-07
18:53:53 UTC ---
Also, for Jeremy's benefit (since he can't look at the sources), the current
configure test is...
#include
#include
int
main ()
{
#if _POSIX_TIMERS > 0 && def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-07 19:04:12 UTC ---
Yeah, Jack... your copying them and pasting them here just makes it easier for
me to accidentally read them. Please don't do that. The code is GPL3, and it
remains
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52478
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikulas at artax dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-07
19:22:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Yeah, Jack... your copying them and pasting them here just makes it easier for
> me to accidentally read them. Please don't do that. The code is GPL3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
Bug #: 54850
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/execute/20041113-1.c execution, -Os
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-07 19:38:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Yeah, Jack... your copying them and pasting them here just makes it easier
> > for
> > me to accidentally r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-07
19:43:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
> I can certainly participate. I just need to make sure that I don't read any
> code snippets that are GPL3 licensed.
>
Well it is absurd to r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-07
20:10:33 UTC ---
The manual change applied to configure works and the build ends up with...
#define _GLIBCXX_USE_NANOSLEEP 1
...in include/x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0/bits/c++config.h. So we s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
Evren yurtesen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyurtese at abo dot fi
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54851
Bug #: 54851
Summary: Compiling gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03 with '-O1
-flto' gives an ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54852
Bug #: 54852
Summary: Bogus(?) warnings when compiling
gfortran.dg/bind_c_vars.f90
gfortran.dg/bind_c_vars_driver.c with -flto
Classification: Unclassified
Prod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #12 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-07
22:17:15 UTC ---
Proposed patch in Comment 11 shows no regressions in the libstdc+-v3 test suite
on x86_64-apple-darwin12...
Native configuration is x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #13 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-07
22:29:17 UTC ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00696.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54853
Bug #: 54853
Summary: (gcc4.7.2) internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #14 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-07 22:49:50 UTC ---
Your patch looks wrong to me. You should just get rid of the '#if
_POSIX_TIMERS > 0' check and always use 'struct timespec' :
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-07
23:03:09 UTC ---
Note that the autoconf test is built by the C++ compiler, thus there is no real
difference between timespec and struct timespec.
In general, remember that library patches sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51422
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-07 23:06:20 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 7 23:06:16 2012
New Revision: 192187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192187
Log:
/cp
2012-10-07 Paolo Carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #16 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-07 23:07:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Note that the autoconf test is built by the C++ compiler, thus there is no
> real
> difference between timespec and struct timespec.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51422
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #17 from Rob Lu 2012-10-07 23:13:59
UTC ---
Created attachment 28382
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28382
libstdc++-acinclude-timespec.patch
How about this as an option?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-07
23:14:55 UTC ---
To repeat what I meant: the autoconf test is built by the C++ compiler. Given
that, writing 'timespec' or writing 'struct timespec' is exactly the same. Just
wanted to clarify
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #19 from Rob Lu 2012-10-07 23:19:01
UTC ---
Created attachment 28383
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28383
libstdc++-configure-timespec
Here's a version that changes configure in case you don't want to re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #20 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-07 23:25:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> To repeat what I meant: the autoconf test is built by the C++ compiler. Given
> that, writing 'timespec' or writing 'struct timespec' is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-07
23:33:41 UTC ---
If you do that, the test may be "correct" but becomes much weaker, you cannot
really assume anymore the POSIX behavior for such functions. You only know that
the functions are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-08
00:21:09 UTC ---
Hm, I was wondering whether the atomic model should also be checked in
sh_check_pch_target_flags or not?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-08 02:00:57
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Oct 8 02:00:46 2012
New Revision: 192193
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192193
Log:
PR target/54760
* config/sh/sh.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #22 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-08 03:48:00 UTC ---
Well we'll go with it for now. I've bumped gcc48 in MacPorts using Rob's
version of the patch. I'll update gcc47 and gcc46 after hearing back from Jon
Chung tôi chuyên san xuat, cung cap các loai may bien ap, bien the công suat
25 KVA, 50 KVA, 75 KVA, 100 KVA, 160 KVA, 180 KVA, 250 KVA, 320 KVA, 400 KVA,
500 KVA, 560 KVA, 630 KVA, 750 KVA, 800 KVA, 1000 KVA, 1200 KVA, 1500 KVA, 1600
KVA, 1800 KVA, 2000 KVA, 2200 KVA, 2500 KVA. den 5000 KVA, v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54854
Bug #: 54854
Summary: [avr] Deprecate and finally remove the -mshort-calls
command line option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54854
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFI
60 matches
Mail list logo
