http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56258
--- Comment #11 from Denis Excoffier 2013-03-10
08:06:54 UTC ---
Please to find someone able to apply the above patches on branches 4.6 and 4.7?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56561
Mike Hommey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
Mike Hommey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56587
Bug #: 56587
Summary: [4.8 regression] libstdc++-abi/abi_check fails for
powerpc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56584
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-03-10
10:14:46 UTC ---
I can't reproduce the error with vanilla gcc-4.7.2 running on Fedora 17/x86_64,
either natively or in a cross to ARM Cortex-M3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56587
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-10
10:15:41 UTC ---
This is before / after / irrespective of this change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-03/msg00033.html
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56585
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-10
10:25:27 UTC ---
For the record, likewise current ICC.
(by the way, you don't need a main in such a testcase, it's a dg-do compile
anyway)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56585
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56585
--- Comment #3 from Fernando Pelliccioni
2013-03-10 11:21:59 UTC ---
I don't see anything about "diagnostic", I only see that the Standard says
"error"
I quote a relevant excerpt from the example.
[ Example:
/* ... */
struct Data {
/* ... */
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56508
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-10 12:08:24
UTC ---
I've only looked briefly how this could be implemented.
As far as I can see, there are two basic cases:
1)
int test0 (int a, int b)
{
return a;
}
currently compiles to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56575
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2013-03-10
12:09:27 UTC ---
> I will apply this patch tomorrow, as "obvious" if nobody objects.
The patch is also approved, with a test case.
> An annoying feature is that the error is repeated. I d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56585
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-10
12:41:42 UTC ---
1.3.6 [defns.diagnostic] and 1.4 [intro.compliance] p2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56575
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas 2013-03-10 13:24:10
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 10 13:23:58 2013
New Revision: 196580
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196580
Log:
2013-03-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56575
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] An |[4.6/4.7 Regression] An
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55794
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2013-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56293
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56572
Patrick Marlier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-10
15:51:03 UTC ---
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index c1f6c88..8005207 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> @@ -5562,7 +5562
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56588
Bug #: 56588
Summary: gnatmake crash with incorrect SAL GPR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56588
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org 2013-03-10 16:03:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 29635
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29635
Patch to fail build if the error is encountered
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #2 from Walt Brainerd 2013-03-10
16:03:37 UTC ---
Sorry, I was trying lots of different experiments and apparently
removed the ! before attaching the file.
I put it back in and now cannot reproduce the error.
Ignore this f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
Bug #: 56589
Summary: [4.8 regression] Array bounds violation is very
end-user unfriendly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56587
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56587
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56590
Bug #: 56590
Summary: Replace auto-inc-dec pass with generic address mode
selection pass
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56585
--- Comment #5 from Fernando Pelliccioni
2013-03-10 17:17:58 UTC ---
Maybe GCC behavior is correct.
I thought, mistakenly, that the examples of the C++ Standard have normative
meaning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56546
--- Comment #2 from kpet at free dot fr 2013-03-10 17:23:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> AVR has no divide instruction and / 60 is performed by a multiplication and
> some adjustment.
Thank you for this explanation.
> > gcc-4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54255
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54105
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54407
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-03-10 17:58:17 UTC ---
Jack,
I see at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00331.html that you
have tested a fix for this PR. I have tested that it skips the test on
powerpc-app
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56591
Bug #: 56591
Summary: Missing space
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas 2013-03-10 18:34:35
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 10 18:34:24 2013
New Revision: 196582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196582
Log:
2013-03-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
--- Comment #5 from Walt Brainerd 2013-03-10
19:39:42 UTC ---
I think that is exactly what they were (wrote a little
program to get rid of them).
The files were produced by OCR and then edited (not by me), so that
is all possible.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-10 19:53:56
UTC ---
Some related notes:
According to the public documentation, the 'fschg' insn is only valid when
FPSCR.PR = 0 on all FPU enabled cores (SH2A, SH4, SH4A).
On SH4 and SH4A the 'frc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas 2013-03-10 20:14:57
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 10 20:14:48 2013
New Revision: 196583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196583
Log:
2013-03-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Summary|[4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas 2013-03-10 21:02:52
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 10 21:02:44 2013
New Revision: 196584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196584
Log:
2013-03-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56577
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56592
Bug #: 56592
Summary: [SH] Add vector ABI
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56293
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Schlüter 2013-03-11
00:15:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > The question is also whether one can construct a fully standard-conform
> > example
> > which fails without -fno-align-commons – and whether some real-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56347
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin 2013-03-11
00:44:33 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 11 00:44:28 2013
New Revision: 196588
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196588
Log:
PR target/56347
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-11
01:04:17 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Mar 11 01:04:13 2013
New Revision: 196590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196590
Log:
PR target/40797
* gcc.c-torture
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56307
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2013-03-11
01:10:43 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 11 01:10:38 2013
New Revision: 196591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196591
Log:
PR debug/56307
* gcc.dg/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54119
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2013-03-11
01:18:22 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 11 01:18:18 2013
New Revision: 196592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196592
Log:
PR testsuite/54119
* gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54119
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54359
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56567
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-11
03:21:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> It's certainly legal to compile a function returning an std::initializer list,
> which is never called. So this fix is problematic. For example
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56502
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29564|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
---
53 matches
Mail list logo
