M-Audio Delta 1010 LT Sound card - 96 kHz - 24-bit
we will be waiting to read back from you the unit cost on each products, so
that we can advice on the quantity needed on each
Regards
Dave
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Thanks for the report. OK to push this patch, tested 'make info pdf
> html'?
You forgot "dvi".
cheers,
DaveK
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Dave Korn wrote on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:40:08PM CET:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the report. OK to push this patch, tested 'make info pdf
>>> html'?
>> You forgot "dvi".
>
> I forgot
Cory Cohen wrote on 19 April 2008 16:31:
> Hello again,
>
> Several days ago I sent a bug report about an internal
> compiler error to
> the cygwin and gcc-bugs lists. I've not heard back anything
> from either
> of the lists, and was wondering if there was something more that I
> needed to prov
"class" is triggering the insertion of
an #ifndef...#endif pair, but the #endif is being tacked on to the end
of the preceeding line, which ends in a continuation character.
Cheers -- Dave.
This fragment of /usr/include/math.h (with line numbers added)
1040 #ifndef __LONGDOUBL
and trying to find the line that
actually corresponds the error is quite hard work, and if the compiler already
has the line that it should help us by showing it (possibly with the line
before as well?)
Dave
--
Summary: Provide option to show preprocessed line with e
--- Comment #8 from dave at treblig dot org 2009-07-03 11:03 ---
Note there are two slightly different things being asked for here:
1) Showing the horizontal position in the line
2) show the preprocessed line rather than the raw line (which was my 40228
that just got marked as a
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at synergy dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20671
--- Additional Comments From dave at synergy dot org 2005-03-28 23:34
---
gnatmake -O3 bit_test
objdump --disassemble -r bit_test.o
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20671
4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Dave at Yost dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37820
--- Comment #5 from dave at icerasemi dot com 2008-10-21 08:28 ---
Subject: RE: If condition not getting eliminated
Hi Ramana,
Please could you add [EMAIL PROTECTED] - then we all get to see
it ;-)
Cheers,
-Original Message-
From: ramana at icerasemi dot com [mailto
--- Comment #40 from dave at genussoft dot com 2008-02-07 19:39 ---
I am trying to use g++ 4.0.0 on AIX 5.3 and have run into this problem and also
the problem reported in bug 18257. What recommendation do you have for using
g++ on AIX? Should I go back to an earlier version, or has
--- Comment #20 from dave at boostpro dot com 2009-04-04 01:33 ---
Subject: Re: deep typedef substitution in error message
on Fri Apr 03 2009, "jason at gcc dot gnu dot org"
wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-03 21:45
> -
--- Comment #23 from dave at boostpro dot com 2009-04-06 09:35 ---
Subject: Re: deep typedef substitution in error message
On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:45 PM, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
>
>
>> Also, I'm not thrilled that
>>
>> boost::sequence::detail:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #8 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:51:12 UTC ---
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
>
> --- Comment #1 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #9 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:54:10 UTC ---
As shown in other attachments, for me it generated references to other
lines (many lines away in the big program I tried to reduce this to),
& if I removed all ear
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #10 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:58:00 UTC ---
I forgot to add when I reentered stuff. This was from MinGW running
on Windows XP, but got same error messages on a Linux machine (sent it
to someone to check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #6 from Dave Abrahams 2012-08-18
23:18:21 UTC ---
Jason, are you submitting (or is there already) an issue for this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54706
Bug #: 54706
Summary: -fsyntax-only suppresses a compilation error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54706
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2012-09-25
19:55:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> As already discussed in another PR, with -fsyntax-only no template
> instantiation occurs. Can be that?
Certainly that explains it.
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
++ -I ~/src/boost/svn/release -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-unused -Wno-parentheses -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG -g -O0
shared.cpp -o shared
In file included from
/Users/dave/src/boost/svn/release/boost/make_shared.hpp:15:0,
from shared.cpp:24:
/Users
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2012-11-04
16:47:37 UTC ---
I hate bugzilla for always tempting me to think I can add attachments when
first submitting a bug, and then refusing the attachment because it's too big.
Voilà
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2012-11-04
16:48:39 UTC ---
PS my apologies again for the size. Just no time to reduce it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-18 21:25:30 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does this still happen if -g is removed? (Via -g0)
No. Attached change fixes fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-18 22:42:13 UTC ---
> Any chance this gets backported?
It's not a regression, but I think it should be backported since it breaks
Linux in a somewhat random manner. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46950
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-20 00:36:28 UTC ---
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> The same revision caused pr46916. Could you try the patch in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47287
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-17 15:12:38 UTC ---
> I suppose you are using GNU ld, right?
Yes (gold has not been ported).
> On trunk x86_64 with stock binutils 2.21 I get
>
> > cat 20010124-1.res
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-17 18:32:22 UTC ---
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> It seems that we get wrong already when streaming abs-1-lib.o file. Would be
> possible to attach cgrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-17 18:39:14 UTC ---
Last graph.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 00:10:55 UTC ---
This is it!
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 00:21:42 UTC ---
Here is abs-1.c.000i.cgraph:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47287
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 01:36:53 UTC ---
Attached .cgraph files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47287
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 01:36:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 23011
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23011
20010124-1.c.000i.cgraph
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-20 00:13:36 UTC ---
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca wrote:
> Here is abs-1.c.000i.cgraph:
The above call graph indicates main_test is not called. Here is
mai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 17:07:34 UTC ---
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I need to see the dump from merging, too.
> They gets name of one of the .o files when -save-temps i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47493
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 17:27:40 UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47493
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 18:06:02 UTC ---
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> Merging should happen after unmerged files are dumped. Perhaps they go to
> some
> funny place,
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46967
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 20:24:02 UTC ---
> With r163461 backported (compiler only built with --enable-languages=c this
> time) we ran the libgomp testsuite 3 times, failed 11/248 tests, 0/248 tests
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #24 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-31 19:35:15 UTC ---
> What endian-ness are the ppc and hppa targets?
hppa is big. I believe ppc is also big.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-01 00:27:21 UTC ---
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, davek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If one of you could try the whole thing with "--save-temps -v -Wl,-v
> -Wl,--verbose", and at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #27 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-01 00:37:22 UTC ---
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, davek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If one of you could try the whole thing with "--save-temps -v -Wl,-v
> -Wl,--verbose", and at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-03 15:33:37 UTC ---
> > on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Weak references don't work on this target and
> > probably others.
>
> If weak symbols do not work, why is then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #21 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-04 14:42:39 UTC ---
> Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00196.html
>
> This is my previous janitorial patch, + a kludge which I believe should fix
> the
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-04 20:28:03 UTC ---
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please provide preprocessed source, so I can try to reproduce it with a cross
> compiler.
Attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-05 01:03:51 UTC ---
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-04
> 23:08:21 UTC ---
> Created attachment 23249
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-05 17:09:48 UTC ---
> Can't reproduce that with a cross to hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, I get the expected
> error instantly.
Sorry, this is my fault. I misapplied your patch.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47622
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-06 16:05:29 UTC ---
Attached dumps.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 00:38:54 UTC ---
> Aha! :)
>
> There's a typo in gthr-dce.h
>
> __gthread_mutx_destroy (__gthread_mutex_t *__mutex)
>
> s/mutx/mutex/
Good catch! I wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 01:00:35 UTC ---
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I suppose the safe thing to would be add the right signature and leave that
> there, but I can't imagi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47804
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 18:54:59 UTC ---
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Created attachment 23397
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23397
> gcc46-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 20:56:54 UTC ---
> Is there no way to get a posix compliant ctime? Alternatively, we'll need
> autoconf magic to detect the extra arg. I know at one time it was relative
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-21 19:38:33 UTC ---
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #17 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-23 14:28:38 UTC ---
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01453.html
Patch resolves ctime.c build. However, _REENTR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-23 14:30:15 UTC ---
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Patch which should hopefully fix the getpwuid_r issue on HP-UX 10.2:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-23 20:15:34 UTC ---
> As there localtime_r is also used in intrinsics/date_and_time.c, I would
> assume
> that one sees the same message there.
Yes. I see them for all _r uses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #23 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-24 14:55:52 UTC ---
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > libgfortran.sl is built twice on HP-UX 10, once for the single thread
> > model and once for th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-26 13:59:50 UTC ---
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I think the build bug is now FIXED; thus:
>
> Please shout loudly if there you still encounte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #30 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-03 13:56:25 UTC ---
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please shout loudly if there you still encounter a build failure!
>
>
> TO BE DONE: The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #35 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-05 17:06:23 UTC ---
> > In testing fix for above, I see:
> >
> > ../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/ctime.c: In function 'strctime':
> > ../../../gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Bug #: 52844
Summary: ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2012-04-03
15:06:08 UTC ---
I think the problem is simple: missing initial type argument to vector_c in:
template
auto apply_tuple(F f, Tuple const & t, vector_c)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Bug #: 52869
Summary: "this" not being allowed in noexcept clauses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52875
Bug #: 52875
Summary: ADL failure + ICE in decltype
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51478
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51489
Bug #: 51489
Summary: constexpr not working consistently
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48051
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-10
19:19:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 26044
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26044
Another test case
Sorry, it's a bit long. Hopefully fixing the others handles this one too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47335
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
Bug #: 51501
Summary: decltype over-agressive SFINAE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-10
21:06:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26045
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26045
test case
compile with -std=c++11 to see the failure. Additionally add -DWORKAROUND to
demonstr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-11
10:32:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Could this be related to Bug 45873?
Not if your explanation in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45873#c2
is correct, I think. This i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
Bug #: 51530
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:16854
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-13
17:46:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 26072
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26072
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51553
Bug #: 51553
Summary: brace initialization and conversion operators
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Bug #: 51561
Summary: Compilation segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:53:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26097
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26097
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:58:37 UTC ---
Close this please! So sorry; I was totally misinterpreting what I saw.
There's no compiler crash.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
Bug #: 51617
Summary: [C++0x] async(f) isn't.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
05:11:20 UTC ---
I should add this (non-normative, but still) note from [futures.async]:
[ Note: If this policy is specified together with other policies, such as when
using a policy value of launch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
Bug #: 51618
Summary: synchronous futures are slow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
10:58:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, this was an intentional choice (as I described in message
> c++std-lib-30840) to ensure the system doesn't get killed by a fork bomb, e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
12:11:33 UTC ---
on Mon Dec 19 2011, "redi at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
13:24:16 UTC ---
Not a problem; thanks for looking.
+
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Dave at Yost dot com
GCC build triplet: 4.1.2
GCC host triplet: Mac OS X Intel
GCC target triplet: Mac OS X Intel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31997
--no_automatic_inline options
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Dave at Yost dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55581
Bug #: 55581
Summary: Too-eager instantiation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55581
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2012-12-04
19:30:40 UTC ---
Actually, here's a simpler test case:
template
struct mooch
{
mooch operator->();
};
template <>
struct mooch<0>
{
int x;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
--- Comment #16 from Dave Abrahams 2012-12-14
16:34:31 UTC ---
Normative text vs. non-normative note == no contest, IMO. But I guess it
doesn't hurt to have the bug open if it doesn't mean any changes to the
library.
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dave at treblig dot org
Target Milestone: ---
This compile has been cooking for 50+mins on an i7 so far, nothing in the .s,
and it's RAM usage is unchanging (and not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71507
--- Comment #1 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
Created attachment 38692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38692&action=edit
compressed, preprocessed c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71507
--- Comment #4 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
Ah thanks.
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dave at daveolday dot com
Created attachment 33162
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33162&action=edit
Internal compiler error
During compile of gnuradio using pybombs the procedure gets to one f
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: fastjar
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dave at joot dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
x:
# touch gcc/doc/gcc.1
# make
--
Summary: Missing Documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reporte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #27 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-07 17:59:27 UTC ---
> >> All fortran testing is broken on Tru64 UNIX, where libgfortran.so has an
> >> undefined reference to clock_gettime:
> >> The functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #30 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-09 00:10:22 UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
>
> --- Comment #29 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-03-08
> 22:38:49 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #38 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-10 16:58:38 UTC ---
> While the latter is fixed, I think the _REENTRANT issue isn't. Or is it?
>
> If it it not fixed, I think we should have (a different) PR open to trac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-17 13:51:03 UTC ---
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you please attach preprocessed source and gcc options used to compile it?
> I'd look with a cro
1 - 100 of 1286 matches
Mail list logo
