http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49360
Wu Xingbo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49360
Wu Xingbo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mipsel-gnu-linux
Host|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49360
Summary: generate wrong logic code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49297
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-06-10
06:10:10 UTC ---
*** Bug 49359 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49359
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49359
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49118
--- Comment #9 from David Krauss 2011-06-10 05:25:08
UTC ---
Thanks!
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:18 PM, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49118
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49359
Summary: fmm_aux_qlm_builder.f90:154: internal compiler error:
in
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49118
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-10
05:18:40 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 10 05:18:36 2011
New Revision: 174889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174889
Log:
PR c++/49118
* typeck2.c (build_x_arrow): P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49358
Summary: optimization regression in 4.6.1 from 4.5.4
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #8 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-06-10 04:13:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 24478 [details]
> alternate patch
>
> This patch is probably better.
I agree. But this does not fully solve the problem either.
INCOMI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49154
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49357
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49357
Summary: [4.7 Regression] register allocation worse
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assigned
isable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++,go : (reconfigured)
/home/jarryd/current/soft/src/gcc-svn/configure
--prefix=/home/jarryd/current/soft/install-latest --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++,go,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110609 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49355
Summary: new T({""}) crashes G++ when struct T { std::string
foobar };
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49354
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-06-10
01:04:37 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Fri Jun 10 01:04:34 2011
New Revision: 174878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174878
Log:
PR bootstrap/49354
* ira-costs.c (setup_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
--- Comment #1 from Mike Jarvis 2011-06-10 00:54:35
UTC ---
I should add that g++ version 4.4.4 also fails to work with this code. It
gives the same "Internal error: Segmentation fault" that 4.5.2 gave.
But g++ 4.0.1 and 4.2.1 do work.
Well,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49350
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-06-10 00:52:13
UTC ---
Revision 174864 gave:
FAIL: gcc.dg/dump-pass.c (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49354
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49354
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=49336
--- Comment #3 from ahn567 at gmail dot com 2011-06-10 00:33:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> ahn567: Do you rely on atan (+/-0, x< 0) returning PI instead of -PI? If it is
> really needed, on could add a special handling for -fno-signed-zero
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49154
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-06-09
23:45:47 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Jun 9 23:45:45 2011
New Revision: 174870
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174870
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/49154
* config/cris/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49154
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-06-09
23:38:38 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Jun 9 23:38:35 2011
New Revision: 174868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174868
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/49154
* ira-costs.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49154
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-06-09
23:36:24 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Jun 9 23:36:22 2011
New Revision: 174867
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174867
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/49154
* doc/tm.texi.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49353
Summary: C++ frontend should not declare function EXTERN when
it forces them to stay
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
Summary: [4.7 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure with -O2
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49351
Summary: Internal error: Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-06-09
22:22:39 UTC ---
The following should partially helps: It solves the segfault for
z(:) = [ x, y ]
and does a deep copy.
TODO:
- I miss a freeing of the components of the LHS, there is currently just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49307
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-06-09
22:19:23 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Thu Jun 9 22:19:20 2011
New Revision: 174861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174861
Log:
PR target/49307
* config/sh/sh.md (UNSP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48660
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49350
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41736
--- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:53:22 UTC ---
Note that I am going to re-submit the fix to this bug now that I am about to
remove template arguments from DW_AT_name for template specializations (PR
debug/49312)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:50:21 UTC ---
This bug resembles PR debug/41736
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41736
--- Comment #7 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:50:01 UTC ---
Another instance of bug that resembles this one is PR debug/49348
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-06-09
21:46:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 24479
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24479
Candidate patch
For a given template instantiation, the dwarf backends emits debug
info that descri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49350
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Many C++ testsuite failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49349
Summary: gfortran.dg/char_result_3.f90 fails with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen 2011-06-09
18:44:29 UTC ---
Four cpu2000 benchmarks (eon,fma3d,sixtrack,apsi) also fail to build with the
same ICE starting with the following revision.
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
Summary: DW_TAG_template_* DIEs missing from template
specializations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
18:35:15 UTC ---
you only reported the bug a few minutes ago, so no, nothing's planned yet!
reduced:
int f( int envp[__restrict] );
p.cc:1:17: error: expected primary-expression before '__restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
--- Comment #2 from Török Edwin 2011-06-09
18:29:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> >
> > Don't know where the #define to __restrict on __cplusplus comes from, but
> > it is
> > wrong.
>
> No, it's correct, see
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24475|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49347
Summary: G++-4.6 Solaris incorrectly defines _RESTRICT_KYWD to
__restrict
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49345
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-06-09
17:47:05 UTC ---
Hmm, -1 is really two tokens - and 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49346
Summary: GNAT fails to compile combination of c23006e and
c32107a ACATS tests
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49345
Summary: Proper casting needed when assigning '-1' to unsigned
variables.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46003
Yufeng Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|yufeng.zhang at arm dot com |
--- Comment #8 from Yufeng Zhang 2011-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #6 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-06-09 17:00:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24475 [details]
> patch
>
> Here's an untested patch. Does this fix the problem for you?
I'll try and let you know.
> Naturally you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #5 from Anitha Boyapati
2011-06-09 16:54:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24475 [details]
> patch
>
> Here's an untested patch. Does this fix the problem for you? Naturally
> you'll
> want to revert it once
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-09
16:32:47 UTC ---
> Are you sure you bisected right?
I should have looked at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00092.html where the range is
given by
> With your recent patch, GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43630
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49341
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-09
16:18:07 UTC ---
For gcc.dg/20051207-3.c the excess error on x86_64-apple-darwin10 is
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20051207-3.c:6:5: note: 'a' was declared
here
gcc.dg/tls/section-1.c is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35112
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42054
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
16:15:29 UTC ---
Fixed in 4.5+?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34756
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30298
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34491
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43081
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38089
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38646
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
16:14:50 UTC ---
Likewise, close as fixed in 4.5+?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen 2011-06-09
16:06:34 UTC ---
Hmm, it's hard to see how my patch could have caused this.
It doesn't really change any RTL.
Does the test case even use global registers?
I don't see any in native/fdlibm/strtod.c
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49257
--- Comment #17 from Richard Henderson 2011-06-09
15:39:33 UTC ---
The Problem here is that using the 387 for these conversions is
normally a Good Thing. Even when we're not mixing 387 and SSE math,
the 387 can do the conversion in 1 insn. Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-09
15:13:18 UTC ---
Sounds a bit strange. It must be (my tree doesn't match the lines exactly):
/* Make sure the negate statement becomes dead with this
single transformation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29003
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29003
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-09 15:07:05 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 9 15:06:59 2011
New Revision: 174846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174846
Log:
/cp
2011-06-09 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-09
14:42:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 24476
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24476
preprocessed file strtod.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64-redhat-linux |ppc*-*-*
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-09
14:17:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 24475
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24475
patch
Here's an untested patch. Does this fix the problem for you? Naturally you'll
want to revert
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Anitha Boyapati changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anitha.boyapati at atmel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48673
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48673
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-06-09
13:55:44 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Jun 9 13:55:41 2011
New Revision: 174844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174844
Log:
PR target/48673
* config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49344
Summary: ICE in tree-flow-inline.h:745 while bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
13:27:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> For map, the first argument to emplace is going to be the key (I believe). We
> can therefore determine if the key is already present in the map before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
13:13:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> When I googled for this problem a year ago I've read that the second line
> doesn't work by *specification* and that you *have* to use emplace.
No, that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-09
13:03:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 24474
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24474
Concatenated testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #26 from Haakan Younes 2011-06-09
13:03:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > Is it really so hard to code emplace methods? Can we somehow help?
>
> It's not so hard, but we have limited resources and o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE on field with variable offset
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49341
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49342
Summary: asm goto documentation error in code snippet
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #25 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
12:41:42 UTC ---
I'm sorry, don't misunderstand me, I'm willing to upgrade. I'm right now
upgrading to 4.6
When I googled for this problem a year ago I've read that the second line
doesn't work by *spe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49341
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/20051207-3.c and
gcc.dg/tls/section-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
12:35:15 UTC ---
I tested it. It works.
Just because the PR was reported against 4.5 doesn't mean it'll be fixed in
that release series. Note there's no Target Milestone set for this PR. I can
as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #23 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
12:27:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Nonsense. The second one works fine.
Nope, it really doesn't! Or was this fixed in GCC 4.6.0 (I'm on 4.5.0 and this
bug report is tagged to 4.5.0)
Do you j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
12:25:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Now with a unique_ptr I'd like to do the same:
>
>
> instancesByIds_[id] = user;
> instancesByIds_[id] = std::move(user);
>
> Both doesnt work.
Nonse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #21 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
12:21:07 UTC ---
Hi,
I don't mean a pair of unique_ptr, just any combination with a unique_ptr.
I for example very often need:
std::map> instancesByIds_;
Now if I want to insert a User, with a sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-09
12:08:01 UTC ---
For sure the rationale behind emplace isn't inserting a pair of unique_ptrs in
a map: maybe it can be a little more convenient in terms of lines of user code,
but isn't the reason emp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #19 from Kira Backes 2011-06-09
11:59:29 UTC ---
Because the usual add functions would have to copy the unique_ptr and that
doesn't work. As I see it in a map there are only insert functions for pairs.
So if this works I'd have to cre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
11:51:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Is it really so hard to code emplace methods? Can we somehow help?
It's not so hard, but we have limited resources and other priorities.
Patches welcom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49329
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-09
11:48:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I wasn't aware that the pointer-to-bool conversion is considered by gcc to be
> better than a char*-to-std::string conversion.
A standard conversion seque
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49340
Summary: read_couts_file() not called for
-fbranch-probabilities
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
