AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: cgd at google dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-linux
GCC host triplet: i686-linux
GCC target triplet: i686-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38232
drive accepts it as well.)
--
Summary: 'map' value type + new uninitted const member warnings
causes error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
--- Comment #1 from cgd at google dot com 2008-11-23 08:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=16750)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16750&action=view)
preprocessed source from test case in bug report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38233
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: cgd at google dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-linux
GCC host triplet: i686-linux
GCC target triplet: i686-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244
--- Comment #1 from cgd at google dot com 2008-11-24 03:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=16754)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16754&action=view)
preprocessed source from test case in bug report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244
--- Comment #7 from cgd at google dot com 2008-11-24 20:55 ---
Would it make sense to add a this test code as a test case?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244
--- Comment #8 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-01 18:30 ---
(re: my last comment on 11/24: I see you added the test case in the original
commit! Sorry, didn't notice that! Thanks much for resolving the issue.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244
--- Comment #4 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-01 23:28 ---
Decided to try to verify again with current head of trunk compiler (since
several other bugs I reported have been fixed, and one was related to value
initialization).
gcc version 4.4.0 20081201 (experimental) (GCC
--- Comment #6 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-04 07:12 ---
verified after syncing that my test case is now fixed.
(Would close, but not sure why Jason didn't close it... please close if there's
nothing else to do, Jason, or tell me to.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: cgd at google dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-linux
GCC host triplet: i686-linux
GCC target triplet: i686-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38661
g
ReportedBy: cgd at google dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40831
--- Comment #1 from cgd at google dot com 2009-07-22 23:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=18239)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18239&action=view)
example c++ input that shows creation of a cloned function which isn't
demangled.
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #4 from cgd at google dot com 2009-07-22 23:44 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't see a problem with this really since it is a local symbol and will
> never be exported so the ABI never gets involved.
>
> a demangled name is only a nice way of displ
--- Comment #11 from cgd at google dot com 2009-09-20 01:34 ---
Subject: Re: -MMD vs not found system header
(included from a system header)
Gack, sorry, looks like I screwed this up.
When I retested after updating, I only compared test results
before/after, and saw what I
--- Comment #16 from cgd at google dot com 2010-02-07 21:24 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> *** Bug 42921 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
FWIW, I actually think that's a different issue (though certainly related).
this bug was all about -MD and -MMD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
Summary: gcc accepts-invalid: taking address of private member
function from template function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078
--- Comment #3 from Chris Demetriou 2011-03-11 19:59:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think this is different enough from any of those others to count as a
> distinct bug - confirmed
I hadn't seen them when i filed this (didn't match the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48083
Summary: DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT + -no-integrated-cpp produces bad
dependencies
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
Summary: -Wall -Werror adds warnings over and above those
generated by -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48088
Summary: -Werror=frame-larger-than=100 does not work as
expected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48088
--- Comment #3 from Chris Demetriou 2011-03-14 22:56:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yeah. Confirmed.
>
> You need -Wframe-larger-than=500 -Werror=frame-larger-than which hopefully
> doesn't reset the value to 1.
It doesn't, but not for
21 matches
Mail list logo
