http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #13 from Mohsin 2011-03-25 05:48:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > (In reply to comment #10)
> > > Two questions here:
> > >
> > > 1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n < number of elements in __s?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48282
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-25 05:20:36
UTC ---
On Linux/x86-64, revision 171426 also causes massive testsuite regressions:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-03/msg00376.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48282
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48282
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48281
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48281
--- Comment #5 from Stirling Westrup 2011-03-25
00:59:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 23772
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23772
Preprocessed version of minimal test case.
Here's a preprocessed version of the minimal test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48281
--- Comment #4 from Stirling Westrup 2011-03-25
00:57:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 23771
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23771
Minimal test case that triggers the error.
Okay, I've managed to pare the original code down to t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48281
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-25
00:52:44 UTC ---
compress the file e.g. with gzip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48281
--- Comment #2 from Stirling Westrup 2011-03-25
00:46:02 UTC ---
It seems that the preprocessed file that generates the error is 3KB in size,
and is being rejected by Bugzilla. How the heck am I supposed to submit it now?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48281
--- Comment #1 from Stirling Westrup 2011-03-25
00:41:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 23770
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23770
c++ code that was preprocessed to generated previous attachment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48281
Summary: internal compiler error: in record_reference, at
cgraphbuild.c:60
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
Adrian Prantl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
--- Comment #3 from Adrian Prantl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48280
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] [C++0x] ICE: tree check:
expected var_decl or function_decl, have template_decl
in check_bases_and_members, at cp/class.c:4695
Product: gcc
V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
Adrian Prantl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adrian at llnl dot gov
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48279
Summary: segfault in gfc_check_vardef_context
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48278
--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Denk 2011-03-24 21:18:22 UTC
---
See also bug 45053; sorry I missed that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48278
Summary: [4.5 Regression] linking results in undefined
references to _savegpr_* _restgpr_*_x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48262
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner 2011-03-24
20:09:06 UTC ---
My reading of the patches, is the rs6000 port was broken, and Andrew's two
patches fixes this.
Richard's patch would have the effect that we wouldn't notice if the two
patches are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48262
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-03-24 20:00:17 UTC ---
What about the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01595.html
? Does it come on top of the patches in comments #5 and #6 or does it replace
them?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48262
--- Comment #11 from Michael Meissner 2011-03-24
19:44:12 UTC ---
I was wrong with my previous comment about movmisalign, and both patches look
good.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48204
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48277
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE for g++.dg/ext/altivec-cell-1.C
on powerpc*-*-*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48204
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-24
18:59:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 24 18:58:58 2011
New Revision: 171423
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171423
Log:
PR debug/48204
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-03-24 18:46:41 UTC ---
> AFAICT, comment #12 is OK on *-darwin9 including cross-cris-elf.
> given that Mike has approved,
> if someone could chip in with a test on x86-64-darwin10, I would think you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48263
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
--- Comment #11 from Ira Rosen 2011-03-24 17:32:54 UTC
---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48263
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-24 17:23:22 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Mar 24 17:23:18 2011
New Revision: 171418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171418
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/48263
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-03-24 16:54:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> -m32 is also needed to trigger this ICE, so i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Yes, sorry, originally I tested the code as C++ code, and in that case, -m32 is
not needed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2011-03-24 16:46:08
UTC ---
(gdb) bt
#0 fancy_abort (file=0xd77f00 "../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/sel-sched-ir.c",
line=5604, function=0xd78e40 "create_copy_of_insn_rtx")
at ../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/diagnostic.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |i686-pc-linux-gnu
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27357
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #12 from Steve Ellcey 2011-03-24 16:29:24
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Mar 24 16:29:18 2011
New Revision: 171404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171404
Log:
2011-03-24 Steve Ellcey
PR target/48209
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48253
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48173
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48276
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr47502-2.c on
x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0 with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48275
Summary: getter=namespace failing with .mm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: objc++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42949
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-03-24
15:13:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> For gcc 4.5 r171282, arm-none-linux-gnueabi, I can run this command without
> error:
>
> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-g++ ~/investigate/pr42949.i -B.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48262
--- Comment #10 from Michael Meissner 2011-03-24
15:02:47 UTC ---
The vec_extract patches look good.
However, I think the movmisalign patch is a band-aid. The exander should call
force_reg if the predicates don't match for movmisalign (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
--- Comment #6 from Ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48274
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-24
15:00:23 UTC ---
FYI
2007-07-09 Richard Guenther
* decl.c (start_preparsed_function): Do not promote return type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48274
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48274
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz 2011-03-24 14:51:08
UTC ---
It's x86_64-linux and indeed it does define that hook. Like 19 other targets.
This is quite inconvenient. The target should have a say in what instructions
are generated (as in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48271
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48271
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-24
14:43:22 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 24 14:43:16 2011
New Revision: 171395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171395
Log:
2011-03-24 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-24
14:39:40 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 24 14:39:36 2011
New Revision: 171394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171394
Log:
2011-03-24 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48250
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42949
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48262
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-24
14:16:54 UTC ---
On powerpc-apple-darwin9, all the tests ran by vect.exp pass with the patches
in comments #5 and #6 on top of revision 171367.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48274
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-03-24 14:01:18 UTC ---
Does the target in question define TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES to return
true? If so, the front end is behaving as requested by the target - while
it would be b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48274
Summary: C frontend emit invalid promotions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48237
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-24 13:35:30 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 24 13:35:26 2011
New Revision: 171391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171391
Log:
PR target/48237
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #16 from Dr. David Kirkby
2011-03-24 13:22:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Let me try and recap.
>
> The initial report was that 5.3 TL10 did *not* have the error. I discovered
> that 5.3 TL10 SP03 does. See [1].
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: in create_copy_of_insn_rtx,
at sel-sched-ir.c:5604 with -fsel-sched-pipelining
-fselective-scheduling2 -march=core2
Product: gcc
Ver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-24
12:49:13 UTC ---
I'm testing this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48272
--- Comment #1 from sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de 2011-03-24 12:46:54 UTC ---
Compiles fine when leaving out "-fsched-pressure"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-24
12:45:02 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 24 12:44:58 2011
New Revision: 171388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171388
Log:
2011-03-24 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48272
Summary: internal compiler error: in
setup_insn_reg_pressure_info, at haifa-sched.c:1124
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe 2011-03-24 12:40:52
UTC ---
AFAICT, comment #12 is OK on *-darwin9 including cross-cris-elf.
given that Mike has approved,
if someone could chip in with a test on x86-64-darwin10, I would think you
could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
--- Comment #6 from Ira Rosen 2011-03-24 12:36:18 UTC
---
My guess is that I freed data-refs too early. Could someone please check if
this patch fixes the failures:
Index: tree-ssa-phiopt.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48271
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48259
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48271
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in tree_ssa_dominator_optimize
(tree-ssa-dom.c:2964) with -O -ftree-vrp
-fno-guess-branch-probability -fnon-call-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
--- Comment #4 from Ira Rosen 2011-03-24 12:18:28 UTC
---
I tried -m32 too, but I don't see any failures.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48264
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48265
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48267
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Target Milestone|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48266
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46562
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500
--- Comment #18 from Gunther Piez 2011-03-24 11:45:47 UTC
---
I have chosen the "recommended" way and added a cast, -fpermissive would allow
to many other dubious constructs to pass. Still I think c++ should get rid of
implicit integer con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-24
11:27:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Two questions here:
> >
> > 1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n < number of elements in __s?
> >
>
> Oops!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46562
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-24
11:23:34 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 24 11:23:29 2011
New Revision: 171386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171386
Log:
2011-03-24 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-24
10:43:29 UTC ---
D.83064_56 = in_int_3(D)->strong_source;
D.83065_57 = D.83064_56->_vptr.KisPacketSource;
D.83086_59 = MEM[(int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) (void) *)D.83065_57 + 92B];
D.73136
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #11 from Mohsin 2011-03-24 10:24:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Two questions here:
>
> 1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n < number of elements in __s?
>
Oops! I meant for __n > number of elements in __s.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #10 from Mohsin 2011-03-24 10:21:56
UTC ---
Two questions here:
1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n < number of elements in __s?
2. For cases undefined in the specs, do we take steps to ensure robustness? I
still cannot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48270
Summary: [4.7 Regression] New test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
marcus at jet dot franken.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marcus at jet dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
--- Comment #1 from Ismail "cartman" Donmez
2011-03-24 09:55:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23766
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23766
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
Summary: Incorrect fortify warning for a packed struct member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #9 from Mohsin 2011-03-24 09:52:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> >
> > I don't see any errors being thrown. I am not trying to nit-pick but I've
> > raised this issue because I was affected by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #8 from Mohsin 2011-03-24 09:50:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Also, GCC 4.1.2 is ancient and not supported here, you should either report
> bugs to the vendor of your version (Red Hat) or refer to a supported version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48263
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-24
09:37:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> I don't see any errors being thrown. I am not trying to nit-pick but I've
> raised this issue because I was affected by it and had to spend seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48268
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-24
09:32:33 UTC ---
Seems to be fixed already on trunk, and probably 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-24
09:29:28 UTC ---
Also, GCC 4.1.2 is ancient and not supported here, you should either report
bugs to the vendor of your version (Red Hat) or refer to a supported version.
As for being disres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44500
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-24
08:58:46 UTC ---
The committee closed my DR as not a defect. We could still downgrade this
error to a pedwarn, though.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_closed.html#1078
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48268
Summary: Incomplete Type (seems auto/c++0x specific)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
