[Bug target/49398] [4.7 ] bootstrap broken for arm-linux-gnueabi with thumb mode.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49398 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/49398] [4.7 ] bootstrap broken for arm-linux-gnueabi with thumb mode.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49398 --- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-06-14 00:23:33 UTC --- Created attachment 24514 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24514 Reduced testcase.

[Bug target/49398] New: [4.7 ] bootstrap broken for arm-linux-gnueabi with thumb mode.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49398 Summary: [4.7 ] bootstrap broken for arm-linux-gnueabi with thumb mode. Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/49397] New: ICE with proc pointer assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397 Summary: ICE with proc pointer assignment Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, rejects-valid Severity: normal Priority: P3 C

[Bug ada/48835] Porting GNAT to GNU/Linux/m68k

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot |

[Bug libstdc++/49384] istringstream::tellg at the end of string gives a wrong result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49384 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-13 21:11:57 UTC --- The published C++ Standard has DEFECTS, as any other Standard. With time, defects are analyzed, fixes found (which then become part of the Standard actually in force) and then implemen

[Bug inline-asm/45718] unresolved reference to __builtin_ia32_loadaps

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45718 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/20049] __builtin_ia32_loadsss is still documented

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20049 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jengelh at medozas dot de --- Comment

[Bug c/49396] New: c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c: duplicate if expressions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49396 Summary: c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c: duplicate if expressions Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unas

[Bug c++/49395] New: Non-class prvalues seem to have cv-qualification with GCC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49395 Summary: Non-class prvalues seem to have cv-qualification with GCC Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug libstdc++/49384] istringstream::tellg at the end of string gives a wrong result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49384 --- Comment #2 from Paul Pogonyshev 2011-06-13 20:09:49 UTC --- So, changing in a way incompatible to what the standard says is intended? Or am I (and pre-4.6 libstdc++) misreading the standard?

[Bug c/49362] Arm Neon intrinsic types not correctly interpreted by compiler.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49362 --- Comment #2 from mark.pupilli at dyson dot com 2011-06-13 19:56:43 UTC --- The vld2q version should actually be 15 instructions (not 17!) as follows: vld2.32{d20-d23}, [r0] vld2.32{d26-d29}, [r1] veor q12, q11, q14

[Bug debug/49382] -O2 -g: DW_AT_location at the very first PC is already modified

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49382 --- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil 2011-06-13 19:52:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > we could special case parameters (PARM_DECLs and vars with PARM_DECL > DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN) before the first insn At least temporarily it would be needed

[Bug debug/49382] -O2 -g: DW_AT_location at the very first PC is already modified

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49382 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-13 19:36:42 UTC --- Alternatively, even before statement frontiers we could special case parameters (PARM_DECLs and vars with PARM_DECL DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN) before the first insn in a function and just e

[Bug debug/49382] -O2 -g: DW_AT_location at the very first PC is already modified

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49382 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/49349] gfortran.dg/char_result_3.f90 fails with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49349 --- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2011-06-13 19:29:56 UTC --- I tested the patch from comment #1 and it fixed gfortran.dg/char_result_3.f90. I got one regression on IA64 Linux but I can't reproduce it so I think it was just a fluke. There were n

[Bug debug/48459] [4.6/4.7 Regression] avr: Assertion failure with -gdwarf-2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459 Richard Henderson changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #24478|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/49394] New: [4.7 Regression] libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/lock_guard/cons/1.cc FAILs with -fipa-pta -fnon-call-exceptions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49394 Summary: [4.7 Regression] libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/lock_guard/cons/1.cc FAILs with -fipa-pta -fnon-call-exceptions Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNC

[Bug middle-end/45307] Stores expanding to no RTL not removed by tree optimizers, Empty ctors/dtors not eliminated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45307 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|blocker |normal

[Bug bootstrap/49383] [4.7 regression] powerpc64-linux bootstrap failure due to ice in cgraph_only_called_directly_p

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49383 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/45307] Stores expanding to no RTL not removed by tree optimizers, Empty ctors/dtors not eliminated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45307 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug lto/49393] [4.7 Regression] LTO testsuite failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49393 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #10 from Justin Lebar 2011-06-13 18:18:13 UTC --- Can I force gcc not to use its inlined version?

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC|Serge.Pavlov.at.gnu at |sergos.gnu at gmail dot com |

[Bug tree-optimization/49367] missed optimization with __restrict field

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49367 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-06-13 18:11:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > As a1 and a2 are not restrict qualified they may point to the same object > and thus the "two" restrict pointers are based on each other. Marking them with

[Bug lto/49393] New: [4.7 Regression] LTO testsuite failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49393 Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO testsuite failures Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto AssignedTo: unassig...@g

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Justin Lebar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||justin.lebar+bug at gmail

[Bug c/49368] __builtin_constant_p is unable to determine if a union is constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49368 --- Comment #2 from David Meggy 2011-06-13 16:03:01 UTC --- Both those versions are newer than what I'm using. Looks like time to upgrade Thanks for looking into this

[Bug rtl-optimization/49390] [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-13 15:35:13 UTC --- Created attachment 24510 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24510 gcc46-pr49390.patch Untested patch. Richard, what do you think about it? Bernd, do you still have s

[Bug debug/48459] [4.6/4.7 Regression] avr: Assertion failure with -gdwarf-2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC|jason at redhat dot com |rth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #16 fr

[Bug target/49392] New: [arm] spurious EABI version mismatches when LTO enabled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49392 Summary: [arm] spurious EABI version mismatches when LTO enabled Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/49390] [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-13 14:28:31 UTC --- Perhaps, if the tests are more expensive, case MEM: if (for_gcse) could first do the cheap tests, then if (!exp_equiv_p (XEXP (x, 0), XEXP (y, 0), validate, 1)) return 0; then do

[Bug driver/49371] xgcc: error: unrecognized option '-pie' on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371 --- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe 2011-06-13 14:18:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #26) > (In reply to comment #25) > > I had assumed that the cases noted in comment #15 were test fails - if they > > were just examples, then we are probably 'there

[Bug rtl-optimization/49390] [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-13 13:53:23 UTC --- Perhaps we should have some exceptions where we allow different MEM_ATTRS, but they need to be carefully chosen. E.g. if both refs are indirect refs and are similar, with the same poi

[Bug driver/49371] xgcc: error: unrecognized option '-pie' on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371 --- Comment #26 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-13 13:46:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #25) > I had assumed that the cases noted in comment #15 were test fails - if they > were just examples, then we are probably 'there' modulo a re-test on d

[Bug driver/49371] xgcc: error: unrecognized option '-pie' on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371 --- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe 2011-06-13 13:27:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > > However, what is still needed is adjustment of test-cases ... > > Which test cases? on x86_64-apple-darwin10 the testsuite passes with only the > known fa

[Bug driver/49371] xgcc: error: unrecognized option '-pie' on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371 --- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-06-13 13:12:36 UTC --- > However, what is still needed is adjustment of test-cases ... Which test cases? on x86_64-apple-darwin10 the testsuite passes with only the known failures (for ppc I only te

[Bug tree-optimization/48613] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: vector VEC(ipa_node_params_t,base) index domain error with -O0 -flto -findirect-inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48613 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambo

[Bug driver/49371] xgcc: error: unrecognized option '-pie' on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #24501|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/49391] New: [arm] sp not accepted as input for alu operation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49391 Summary: [arm] sp not accepted as input for alu operation Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: target AssignedTo: u

[Bug rtl-optimization/25130] [4.1/4.2 Regression] miscompilation in GCSE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25130 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED CC|

[Bug c++/49387] t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-13 12:39:59 UTC --- further reduced #include struct ResourceMonitorClient { }; template struct ResourcePool : public ResourceMonitorClient { virtual ~ResourcePool() { } }; template struct Base

[Bug rtl-optimization/49390] [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-13 12:36:58 UTC --- Blindly ignoring MEM_EXPR or other attributes looks very wrong to me. Guess in some cases it could return true even when MEM_ATTRS aren't identical, but they'd need to have the same be

[Bug tree-optimization/49343] [4.7 regression] ICE on field with variable offset

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-13 12:30:02 UTC --- > This is a proposed (fully tested) fix. How do you want me to add a testcase? > Should I just add the test-case attached to this bug to gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg? Yes, you can add it u

[Bug c++/49380] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Several packages fail to link when building with GCC4.6 (amarok 1.4, FreeCAD)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49380 --- Comment #15 from Ilya Chernykh 2011-06-13 12:17:47 UTC --- I think this is fixed already?

[Bug c++/49380] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Several packages fail to link when building with GCC4.6 (amarok 1.4, FreeCAD)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49380 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-13 11:54:27 UTC --- To be clear: if we want to close this as WONTFIX, I'm not objecting. I'd like only to ear from Dave, though, because I'm not in touch with anybody seriously using GCC on the affected

[Bug c++/49387] t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-13 11:53:52 UTC --- Created attachment 24508 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24508 reduced testcase

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-13 11:36:50 UTC --- I agree in principle about the "c++config.h" (aka os_defines.h) header of the broken targets (which would be, I suppose, djgpp and mingw32) and considered using it earlier today, but

[Bug target/49385] Invalid RTL intstruction for ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385 --- Comment #2 from revital.eres at linaro dot org 2011-06-13 11:26:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I get no ICE on this with 4.7 r174986, even with --enable-checking, and the > assembler doesn't complain about the generated code. > So what i

[Bug rtl-optimization/49390] [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.4.6, 4.5.2 Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/49390] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390 Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-

[Bug c++/49380] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Several packages fail to link when building with GCC4.6 (amarok 1.4, FreeCAD)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49380 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Known to work|

[Bug target/49385] Invalid RTL intstruction for ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-06-13 11:20:23 UTC --- I get no ICE on this with 4.7 r174986, even with --enable-checking, and the assembler doesn't complain about the generated code. So what is the problem?

[Bug c++/49389] New: [C++0x] Wrong value category for pointer-to-member expression with rvalue object expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49389 Summary: [C++0x] Wrong value category for pointer-to-member expression with rvalue object expression Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 f

[Bug c++/49387] t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre 2011-06-13 09:49:41 UTC --- Test was done a on a debian/squeeze system: $ g++ --version g++ (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5 $ apt-cache policy libboost1.42-dev libboost1.42-dev: Installed: 1.42.0-4 Candidate: 1

[Bug c++/49387] t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-13 09:34:52 UTC --- Created attachment 24506 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24506 Draft patch This is what I mean. It works of course, but in my opinion is even more ugly than what w

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-13 09:29:07 UTC --- Oh yes, the issue of course is that the #undef themselves are inside the include guards of c++config, thus happen only once. We can take them out and "solve" the issue.

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-06-13 09:25:33 UTC --- Note that , before anything else, does #include , thus there is something weird going on. If you can spot it, just tell me and let's resolve this stupid M$ thing.

[Bug c++/49388] Template class can extend private nested class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49388 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/47346] access control for nested type is ignored in class template

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew_eanor at hotmail

[Bug target/48454] gfortran.dg/char_result_13.f90 fails with -O3 -funroll-loops -mvectorize-with-neon-quad

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48454 --- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-06-13 09:09:19 UTC --- Author: ramana Date: Mon Jun 13 09:09:14 2011 New Revision: 174984 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174984 Log: PR target/48454 Fix vmovn lengths. 2011-

[Bug c++/49387] t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre 2011-06-13 09:09:15 UTC --- Created attachment 24505 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24505 Test case

[Bug c++/49387] t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/49388] New: Template class can extend private nested class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49388 Summary: Template class can extend private nested class Product: gcc Version: 4.4.5 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unass

[Bug fortran/49103] [4.6/4.7 Regression] local variables exchange values / wrong code with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49103 --- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2011-06-13 08:41:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > This untested hack is an attempt to avoid reverting my patch Submitted version of the workaround patch 4.6: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg0

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #4 from Takaya Saito 2011-06-13 08:29:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Ah yes. This is unfortunate, and I believe tricky to fix at the gcc end. We > could in principle add '#undef min, #undef max', but I worry that might break >

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #3 from Chris Jefferson 2011-06-13 08:15:39 UTC --- Ah yes. This is unfortunate, and I believe tricky to fix at the gcc end. We could in principle add '#undef min, #undef max', but I worry that might break something else. If you '#de

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 --- Comment #2 from Takaya Saito 2011-06-13 08:09:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > max is a term defiend in the standard library. It is undefined behaviour if > you > #define it to something else when you are using standard library headers.

[Bug debug/48459] [4.6/4.7 Regression] avr: Assertion failure with -gdwarf-2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459 --- Comment #15 from Anitha Boyapati 2011-06-13 07:55:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > > Can you change the state to NEW and raise the severity to blocker? I don't > > have > > required privileges. > > I've

[Bug libstdc++/49386] #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 Chris Jefferson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chris at bubblescope dot

[Bug debug/48459] [4.6/4.7 Regression] avr: Assertion failure with -gdwarf-2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459 Eric Weddington changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|2011-04-20 00:00

[Bug c++/49387] New: t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387 Summary: t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const __class_type_info_pseudo’ Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug libstdc++/49386] New: #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386 Summary: #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ AssignedT

[Bug debug/48459] [4.6/4.7 Regression] avr: Assertion failure with -gdwarf-2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459 --- Comment #13 from Anitha Boyapati 2011-06-13 07:13:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > function returns true. As a result, dwarf_debug_frame_expr() is always called! Typo - dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr() is always called. Georg: Can you