http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46626
--- Comment #8 from Roman Kononov 2010-12-25
01:49:05 UTC ---
With the patch applied to r168236:
$ cat test.cpp
struct X {
virtual int& x(int&)=0;
virtual ~X() {}
};
struct Y {
virtual int& y(int&)=0;
virtual ~Y() {}
};
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47067
Summary: [c++0x] ICE in cxx_eval_bare_aggregate, at
cp/semantics.c:6352
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47355
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed with -O2
-fipa-cp-clone
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47355
--- Comment #1 from Roman Kononov 2011-01-19
01:45:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 23026
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23026
this is the real test case; ignore the other one please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50707
Bug #: 50707
Summary: [C++0x] Non-static const data member initializer
breaks default constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53161
Roman Kononov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roman at binarylife dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53432
Roman Kononov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roman at binarylife dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53432
--- Comment #3 from Roman Kononov 2012-05-23
14:58:28 UTC ---
It broke in r187631
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-05/msg00628.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52309
Bug #: 52309
Summary: [c++0x] unordered_set illegally requires
value_type::operator!=
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
Bug #: 52555
Summary: [Regression] ICE unrecognizable insn with -ffast-math
and __attribute__((optimize(xx)))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
--- Comment #1 from Roman Kononov 2012-03-12
12:51:20 UTC ---
It broke in r165823.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51406
Bug #: 51406
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression][c++0x] Incorrect result of
static_cast to rvalue reference to base class.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51866
Bug #: 51866
Summary: [c++0x][4.7 Regression] unordered_set compares
moved-out values
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51866
--- Comment #2 from Roman Kononov 2012-01-16
01:50:37 UTC ---
it is been bisected...
r183180 is bad
r170936 is good
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: roman at binarylife dot net
Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Build: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
$ cat test.cc
#include
template
struct X { char stuff[N]; };
template
onent: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: roman at binarylife dot net
$ cat test.cc
#include
struct X {
char stuff[0];
};
X foo(std::atomic& a, X x) {
a = x;
return a;
}
$ g++ -std=c++11 -c test.cc
In file included from test.cc:1:0:
/home/abend/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60695
--- Comment #3 from Roman Kononov ---
Yes, it is definitely silly in some sense. But, some templated user code might
become more complex with this behaviour. If gcc supports zero-sized objects it
would be nice to support them fully. The implementa
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: roman at binarylife dot net
$ cat test1.cc
struct foo {
template
struct bar {
char* p = new char[size];
};
};
foo::bar<10> moo;
$ g
--- Comment #3 from roman at binarylife dot net 2010-03-18 14:52 ---
This looks related.
$ cat test.c
_Decimal64 func() {
return 9e384dd + 9e384dd;
}
$ gcc -c test.c
test.c: In function 'func':
test.c:2:3: internal compiler error: in decimal_to_decnumber, at
+
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: roman at binarylife dot net
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: roman at binarylife dot net
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC
--- Comment #1 from roman at binarylife dot net 2010-04-02 19:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=20293)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20293&action=view)
test.cpp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43632
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: roman at binarylife dot net
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64
--- Comment #3 from roman at binarylife dot net 2010-04-12 12:41 ---
sorry for bothering :)
thanks
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43720
rity: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: roman at binarylife dot net
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43783
--- Comment #2 from roman at binarylife dot net 2010-04-18 18:34 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This needs a testcase. The libdecnumber code is a mess (and I can't find
> an implementation for bid128_ext_fma()).
>
bid128_ext_fma() is in libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.
--- Comment #3 from roman at binarylife dot net 2010-04-19 04:25 ---
Starting from r150519 gcc compiles its own internal libbid wrong.
With the previous revision of gcc, the output of the above test.c is correct:
$ gcc -O test.c && ./a.out
ab=1.23457e-158
xy=1.23457e-158
--
--- Comment #9 from roman at binarylife dot net 2010-04-19 20:46 ---
The 4.5 branch works for me if patched this way.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43783
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: roman at binarylife dot net
[atomic.types.generic]: There is a generic class template atomic. The type
of the template argument T shall be trivially copyable (3.9).
It would be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48707
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] [c++0x] ICE initializing static
const int
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48707
--- Comment #1 from Roman Kononov 2011-04-21
15:57:12 UTC ---
It is caused by -r170488.
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: roman at binarylife dot net
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46688
Summary: [4.6 Regression] g++ requires a function declaration
when it should not
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46718
Summary: [c++0x] nullptr_t must be scalar
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46718
--- Comment #1 from Roman Kononov 2010-11-30
02:09:44 UTC ---
This is required by "20.7.4.2 Composite type traits" and "3.9 Types"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46733
Summary: [c++0x] member function template is used for
copy-construction when it should not
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46736
Summary: [c++0x] move constructor is not implicitly deleted
when it should be
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
Summary: [4.6 Regression][c++0x] valid code rejected with
"error: uninitialized const"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49176
--- Comment #2 from Roman Kononov 2011-05-26
20:15:35 UTC ---
4.6 branch, r174294
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49219
Summary: [c++0x] comparing unordered containers illegally
require key compare
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
40 matches
Mail list logo
