http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
Bug ID: 57880
Summary: cp/parser.c: 6 * missing break ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57631
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57156
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz ---
I just noticed the following in the Intel Optimization Reference Manual
(Version 028 from July 2013), section 2.2 "Sandy Bridge":
2.2.3.1 Renamer
[...]
There is another dependency breaking idiom - the "ones i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57881
Bug ID: 57881
Summary: Pre-processor pre-includes breaks preprocessing of non
C/C++ code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52987
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
The first half is fixed for 4.9.0 (r200150).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57865
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #5)
> (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 30489 [details]
> > Fix ool_adjust
> >
> > Please verify that this fixes the problem
>
> Yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57865
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #6)
> Test results:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-07/msg00968.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-07/msg00980.html
http://gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57882
Bug ID: 57882
Summary: ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57882
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ejkruus at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> Once we have ref-qualifiers, it should be OK to add the non-const overload
> with an lvalue ref-qualifier, though.
Now we have ref-qualifiers. Do we want to provid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883
Bug ID: 57883
Summary: Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52669
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884
Bug ID: 57884
Summary: False positive in libgfortran finalization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871
--- Comment #5 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
I have now found two more oddities of type promotion but I don't claim
that these are gfortran bugs, only that the mmanual might need amending.
Oddity 1. Although -freal-4-real-8 does what the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884
--- Comment #1 from Eugene Zelenko ---
Created attachment 30498
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30498&action=edit
zcopy FORTRAN procedure from BLAS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884
--- Comment #2 from Eugene Zelenko ---
Sorry, forgot to add GCC configuration information in original report:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/gcc481/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/gcc481/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.1/lto-wrapper
Target:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:30:04PM +, harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871
>
> --- Comment #5 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
> I have now found two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Trunk rev. 200913 fixes this problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
What about 4_8-branch? The bug is marked as 4.8 Regression. Either way, I
suppose the bug should be closed, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57873
Bernhard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57661
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #7 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Taking a stab at fixing this. Here is what is going on. In rev. 200179, this
change to tree-inline.c
Index: tree-inline.c
===
--- tree-inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #8 from Sriraman Tallam ---
One other alternative to the patch proposed earlier. The reported bug happens
only when optimization is turned on as the early inliner pass invokes
incremental inlining which calls optimize_inline_calls and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
Bug ID: 57885
Summary: unordered_map find slower in 4.8.1 than 4.7.3 with
integer key
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
27 matches
Mail list logo