https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60628
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54310
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 13 16:14:19 2014
New Revision: 210385
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-13 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/54310
* g++.dg/templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54310
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60210
--- Comment #1 from Florent Hivert ---
The bug has vanished in the recent 4.9.0 release. Should I mark the ticket as
RESOLVED and close it ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61179
Bug ID: 61179
Summary: Can not compile "type is(double complex)"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61066
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Gutson
---
Sorry my lack of time.
Thanks Jason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60210
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks for the update. I'm pretty sure it's a Dup, thus instead of simply
closing it, let me find the other bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61180
Bug ID: 61180
Summary: surprising -Wsurprising warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53658
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||florent.hivert at lri dot fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60210
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60497
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For example:
#include
#include
struct A;
template struct B { T t; };
int main()
{
using UP = std::unique_ptr>;
std::vector v;
v = v;
}
The self-assignment test in std::vector uses &__rhs which d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61179
--- Comment #1 from mrestelli ---
I see now that "DOUBLE COMPLEX" is not specified by the standard,
which rather says "There is no keyword for double precision complex."
And in fact for a different code I see that gfortran indicates it as
GNU ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61151
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
--- Comment #4 from Rion ---
It's not reproducible on 4.6.1, 4.7.3 and 4.8.2
so if this version is unmaintained, then probably the bug may be closed.
this version of compiler is currently used in Intel embedded sdk.
I'm in Inango currently work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61177
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61181
Bug ID: 61181
Summary: -Wunused-but-set-variable for Fortran
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60497
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 13 17:22:08 2014
New Revision: 210388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60497
* include/debug/array (get): Qualify call to o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61179
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61151
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 13 17:40:03 2014
New Revision: 210392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61151
* lambda.c (is_this): Allow capture proxies too.
Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61180
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60019
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 13 17:39:56 2014
New Revision: 210391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 5
PR c++/60019
* call.c (build_user_type_conversion_1): The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 13 17:41:12 2014
New Revision: 210393
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210393&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61162
* c-typeck.c (convert_for_assignment): Pass location
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61181
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61180
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61151
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue May 13 17:54:00 2014
New Revision: 210394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210394&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61151
* semantics.c (is_this_parameter): Allow capture proxi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60970
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Not marking this as fixed yet, we should probably address the column info for
return stmts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60019
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 32792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32792&action=edit
Better patch with test case.
2014-05-13 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61158
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61121
--- Comment #4 from Jim Michaels ---
which means to me it takes only a constant.
it should be able to take the equivalent of "auto" (however the gcc folk want
to write that), again due to the wide difference between processors. for
targeting publ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61178
tower120 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61178
tower120 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61178
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tower120 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
Bug ID: 61182
Summary: Forming pointer to qualified function type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61174
--- Comment #7 from alkino ---
I only spot the wrong bug. Here it is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue May 13 20:26:51 2014
New Revision: 210400
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Jeff Law
PR tree-optimization/61009
* tree-ssa-threa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60902
--- Comment #35 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue May 13 20:26:30 2014
New Revision: 210398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210398&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60902
* tree-ssa-threadedge.c
(record_temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60902
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61183
--- Comment #1 from Giovanni Bajo ---
Created attachment 32794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32794&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61183
Bug ID: 61183
Summary: Large memory usage with smallish C++ templates (>
16GB)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
In fact, icc, clang, and SolarisStudio appear to accept pointers to qualified
function types?!?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
--- Comment #3 from pdaou...@aldebaran-robotics.com ---
I am no c++ expert but my guess is that it should be allowed to have qualified
function types as long as you don't try to instantiate that type.
The problem in our code is that we use boost:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60966
Leon Timmermans changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fawaka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60244
--- Comment #5 from Halo9Pan03 ---
Thanks niXman
I got this problem in 4.9.0 release.
But I already built it successfully with Alexpux/MINGW-packages's gcc patches.
Thanks any way.
-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140513 (experimental) [trunk revision 210350] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O0 -c foo.c
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O0 -c main.c
$ gcc-trunk -flto -Os foo.o main.o
$ a.out
^C
$
$ gcc-4.9.0 -flto -O0 -c foo.c
$ gcc-4.9.0 -flto -O0 -c main.c
$ gcc-4.9.0 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60966
Hideaki Kimura changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hideaki.kimura at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #19 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #18)
Ah, I saw the link in comment 17 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*|powerpc*-*-*, cris-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61182
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
8.3.5/6 says,
A function type with a cv-qualifier-seq or a ref-qualifier ... shall appear
only as:
— the function type for a non-static member function,
— the function type to which a pointer to member refer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60928
--- Comment #3 from Sean Santos ---
OpenMP 4.0 is strange. Sure, it does refer to "allocatable enhancement" as an
unsupported feature, which is vague. It might refer to the TR unofficially
known as the "Allocatable Enhancements" update, or it mig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #18 from Rich Felker ---
Any ideas on how to reliably test for this bug without having to run programs
(breaks cross-compiling) or use additional tools (nm, objdump, etc. which we
don't already depend on) to detect it? Since this issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61158
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I found this one with -fsanitize=shift. The runtime error message says
"shift exponent -8 is negative". Maybe this is also a sanitizer bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60928
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Sean Santos from comment #3)
> 'For a list item or the subobject of a list item with the ALLOCATABLE
> attribute:
Frankly, I fail to decipher what a "subobject of a list item with the
allocatabl
101 - 163 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
