http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
Bug #: 56760
Summary: namespaces, templates and forwarding declarations.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #1 from erik.thi...@thiele-hydraulik.de 2013-03-28 07:01:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 29740
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29740
v2 source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #2 from erik.thi...@thiele-hydraulik.de 2013-03-28 07:05:22 UTC ---
You see attached two files. v1.cpp and v2.cpp
g++ --version
g++ (Debian 4.7.2-5) 4.7.2
Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free softwar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
07:38:04 UTC ---
Something goes wrong in LIM.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56761
Bug #: 56761
Summary: Error: CreateProcess: No such file or directory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #4 from erik.thi...@thiele-hydraulik.de 2013-03-28 07:58:00 UTC ---
The example is reduced very much. Actually I have a module for "holder" and one
for "contain" (separate compilation units). They do not know about each other.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56761
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-03-28
07:58:29 UTC ---
Where did you grab the prebuilt binraries from? gcc.gnu.org does not support
prebuilt binraries really.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #5 from erik.thi...@thiele-hydraulik.de 2013-03-28 08:22:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 29741
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29741
v3 source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #6 from erik.thi...@thiele-hydraulik.de 2013-03-28 08:27:34 UTC ---
let me paste "v3 source code" that is also added as attachment:
namespace nam { class binbuffer {}; }
template void func (const T &a, nam::binbuffer &b);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19449
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-28
08:53:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 29742
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29742
gcc49-pr19449.patch
Untested patch. There is another case where we'd better fold
__builti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56761
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-28
09:12:15 UTC ---
There is no header in standard C++, so any code written in the
last 15 years should not try to use it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-28
09:16:52 UTC ---
Read the section on name lookup changes at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56761
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56746
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
09:54:58 UTC ---
It seems that move_computations_stmt firstly inserts into bb 11
# VUSE <.MEM_21>
D__lsm.5 = *_17;
and then
# VUSE <.MEM_21>
_17 = *q_8(D);
move_computations then commits t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #8 from erik.thi...@thiele-hydraulik.de 2013-03-28 09:55:49 UTC ---
I read the section on name lookup changes at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html
but it talks about a different kind of problem. Consider that there the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56737
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-28 10:07:29 UTC ---
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
>
> --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
10:11:55 UTC ---
FWIW, started with http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=196769
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-28 10:26:48 UTC ---
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
>
> --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56762
Bug #: 56762
Summary: too aggressive optimization or missing warnings
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56746
--- Comment #7 from Mathias Gaunard 2013-03-28
10:39:53 UTC ---
Using either -save-temps or -ftrack-macro-expansion=0-ftrack-macro-expansion=0
removes the memory hog.
Compiling the preprocessed source does not cause increased memory usage.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-28
11:05:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I read the section on name lookup changes at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html
>
> but it talks about a different kind of problem. Con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek 2013-03-28
11:15:20 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 28 11:14:44 2013
New Revision: 197192
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56695
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56762
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2013-03-28
12:34:24 UTC ---
Ok, so one reason is that we simply "ignore" dependencies when computing
what stmts to move (which happens in the same processing order):
static bool
add_dependency (tree de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #31 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-28
12:36:36 UTC ---
The 4.8 workaround has been reverted yesterday with the commit below
so the bug should be alive and kicking again.
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Mar 27 14:06:58 2013
New Revisi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56756
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2013-03-28
12:42:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 29744
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29744
patch
This patch makes us not rely on a dominator walk to magically get us process
stmts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56763
Bug #: 56763
Summary: "attribute ignored in declaration of " warning points
to wrong place
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56764
Bug #: 56764
Summary: vect_prune_runtime_alias_test_list not smart enough
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Michel Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-28
13:36:07 UTC ---
The implementation is complete. Unfortunately, my fixes for DRs 337 and 657
are interfering with the desired result; creating a function type returning an
abstract class cause
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56762
--- Comment #2 from npl at chello dot at 2013-03-28 13:38:01 UTC ---
Oh how I hate this rule. Thanks for the info and sorry for the invalid report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765
Bug #: 56765
Summary: compilation errors/ICE with unlimited polymorphic
array
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-28
13:46:02 UTC ---
Thanks Jason. Looks like to be safe we should also add Nathan's testcase as-is
to the testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-28
14:07:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29745
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29745
gcc49-pr34949-1.patch
Incremental patch, passed bootstrap together with the later jason's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-28
14:09:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 29746
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29746
gcc49-pr34949-2.patch
Another needed patch, without which DSE wouldn't really delete the u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
Bug #: 56766
Summary: Fails to combine (vec_select (vec_concat ...)) to
(vec_merge ...)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15672
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-28
15:13:08 UTC ---
Clang diagnoses the most vexing parse, comment 5 gets:
sf.cc:7:7: warning: parentheses were disambiguated as a function declaration
[-Wvexing-parse]
g1 f(t(c));
^
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15672
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npl at chello dot at
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Balakrishnan B changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||balakrishnan.erode at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56725
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-28
16:11:31 UTC ---
Cool, thanks guys for working on this. I hope the library issues aren't too
serious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #10 from erik.thi...@thiele-hydraulik.de 2013-03-28 16:50:06 UTC ---
But the function actually IS defined, because the call func(foo,b) works. Yes
it is not defined early enough maybe. But the linker is run after the compiler.
Ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56760
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-28
17:19:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> But the function actually IS defined,
No it isn't! Please read my answer again carefully.
The function that gets called is
template void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56767
Bug #: 56767
Summary: gcc does not generate correct code with -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56767
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-28
17:39:38 UTC ---
GCC clearly warns you about this:
x.c: In function ‘round2’:
x.c:10:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
This is why before creating the bug repor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56754
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Bug #: 56768
Summary: [4.7] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1147
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56769
Bug #: 56769
Summary: [4.7] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:2511
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56770
Bug #: 56770
Summary: Partial sums loop optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56679
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56701
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56710
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
Bug #: 56771
Summary: Integer Overflow? Building arm-rtems libgcc2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2013-03-28 20:10:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 29747
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29747
Preprocessed code that fails to build
I don't think this code is in error. At least I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill 2013-03-28 20:12:06
UTC ---
Created attachment 29748
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29748
Full build log
In case there is something useful in the build log.
Host: CentOS 6.4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56679
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-28
20:13:17 UTC ---
Indeed. Thanks again!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56772
Bug #: 56772
Summary: placement new operator does not work inside function
template.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
Bug #: 56773
Summary: Programs crash if compiled with --coverage, although
they run correctly without --coverage
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-28
21:13:15 UTC ---
It isn't a library issue, in libstdc++ it is just ICE
internal compiler error: in sra_ipa_reset_debug_stmts, at tree-sra.c:4681
in all the libstdc++ testcases that regressed be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-03-28
21:14:28 UTC ---
open is the name of the standard C function open. --coverage uses a library
which calls the open function; this causes the crash. I think you are exposing
undefined behavior.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56774
Bug #: 56774
Summary: G++ 4.8 reverses variadic template types during
unpacking
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
peter.hans.froehlich at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter.hans.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41115
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56728
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56772
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|meng at g dot clemson.edu |
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56774
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-28
23:58:04 UTC ---
I see.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56774
Daniel Frey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.frey at gmx dot de
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56774
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56774
--- Comment #4 from Shane 2013-03-29 00:21:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> We badly need a reduced testcase not using the whole (not to mention
> of course)
Here's a more reduced test case.
template
struct mytype {};
tem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #13 from Michel Morin 2013-03-29
00:40:59 UTC ---
Thanks Jason, Paolo.
I'll enable N3276 decltype support in Boost.Config for gcc 4.8.1 and 4.9.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56772
--- Comment #2 from meng at g dot clemson.edu 2013-03-29 00:45:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I see a sorry message thus the issue seems known.
I agree. What confused me was that the feature is not unimplemented, it worked
well for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56755
--- Comment #3 from bryan 2013-03-29 02:32:20 UTC
---
let me provide more details about this bug.
I got all of my program's function names from compiler and wanted to demangle
them. C++filt successfully demangled almost all of the names,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56775
Bug #: 56775
Summary: -flto and -fprofile-generate together result in a
link-time internal compiler error (in
"add_symbol_to_partition")
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
--- Comment #6 from Chip Salzenberg 2013-03-29 06:05:19
UTC ---
May I have this accepted?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55591
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2013-03-29 06:13:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Untested (but successfully compiled) patch:
>
> --- a/gcc/fortran/options.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/options.c
> @@ -170,4 +170,6 @@ gfc_init_opti
94 matches
Mail list logo
