http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52815
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52815
Bug #: 52815
Summary: class.c:2815:53: error: 'JCR_SECTION_NAME' was not
declared in this scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52685
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52470
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52639
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52814
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52814
--- Comment #1 from rohit 2012-03-31 22:55:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 27056
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27056
preprocessed file with shows error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52814
Bug #: 52814
Summary: Internal compiler error: segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52813
Bug #: 52813
Summary: %rsp in clobber list is silently ignored
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52811
--- Comment #2 from goeland86 at gmail dot com 2012-03-31 22:04:50 UTC ---
Apologies. I will upload the proper files as soon as possible - at the moment I
have gentoo installing the whole system having fixed the bug. I will re-create
the conditions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52812
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52812
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-31
21:08:26 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Mar 31 21:08:22 2012
New Revision: 186050
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186050
Log:
Handle -mx32 like -m64
libgomp/
2012-03-31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52784
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-31
21:03:42 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Mar 31 21:03:36 2012
New Revision: 186049
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186049
Log:
Don't check TARGET_64BIT if TARGET_64BIT_DEF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52812
Bug #: 52812
Summary: --enable-targets=all --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32
doesn't work with i686-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52811
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52811
Bug #: 52811
Summary: -O3 flag makes xorg-server-1.11.4 compile fail on
amd64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52805
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #8 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
18:29:45 UTC ---
I think it's actually (-3)_w. The tokenizer would pick the - up and pass -3
along.
The result of applying a literal operator may not be numeric at all i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-31
17:18:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Also, what about this:
>
> -3_w;
What about it? IIUC, it is just -(3_w), I don't think it requires a particular
treatment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-03-31 17:07:32
UTC ---
It may be caused by revision 185913:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-03/msg01244.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
17:06:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 27054
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27054
Test case for overflow warnings.
This test case should give the approp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-03-31 17:02:48 UTC ---
A candidate fix was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01993.html for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
16:57:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 27053
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27053
This test should give no warnings.
I think I'm going to have to put of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52809
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52809
Bug #: 52809
Summary: Template non-dependent static_assert diagnostics may
confuse
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52680
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52797
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-03-31
15:16:18 UTC ---
The error is the same as in pr52808.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-03-31
15:16:11 UTC ---
The error is the same as in pr52797.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52680
--- Comment #6 from Matt Kline 2012-03-31 14:52:40
UTC ---
Well this certainly isn't my brightest moment. That seems to be the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-03-31 14:46:11
UTC ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-16 bld]$ cat x.c
#include
#if ((' ' & 0x0FF) == 0x020)
# define ISLOWER(c) ('a' <= (c) && (c) <= 'z')
# define TOUPPER(c) (ISLOWER(c) ? 'A' + ((c) - 'a') : (c))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
Bug #: 52808
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52806
--- Comment #5 from Akim Demaille 2012-03-31
14:26:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I don't think this comment makes sense: with what would you want them
> to replace these 0, since nullptr is not available?
This does not read like I meant,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52806
--- Comment #4 from Akim Demaille 2012-03-31
14:12:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Oh well, changing this would be really trivial, but then people would have to
> globally switch-on -std=c++11 (which may not be otherwise appropriate) while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26979|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52806
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-31
13:49:10 UTC ---
Note, even in the *specific* case at issue, maybe the user really wanted p1
statically initialized, or wants an early function call, or something like:
typedef int* pt;
int* p1 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52806
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-31
13:06:14 UTC ---
And, hey, I don't really see what's the problem with not passing the -Wzero* at
all if you don't want the warning.
That can *always* be done, but if I once and for all prevent the -Wz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52806
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52807
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52807
Bug #: 52807
Summary: static constant member variable undefined
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52806
Bug #: 52806
Summary: bogus "zero as null pointer constant" warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52680
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-31
12:02:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Where should I specify that flag? _GLIBCXX_USE_NANOSLEEP is still undefined
> when I build gcc with
>
> configure CFLAGS='-O3' --disable-bootstrap --disab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52805
Bug #: 52805
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 243 new GCC HEAD@185977 regressions
(libjava failures)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
Bug #: 52804
Summary: IRA/RELOAD allocate wrong register on ARM for
cortex-m0
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52663
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52803
Bug #: 52803
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: in ira, at ira.c:3616 with
-fno-move-loop-invariants on almost any code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
--- Comment #25 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-31
09:37:51 UTC ---
The test for AVX2 in expand_vec_perm_interleave2 might be too strict. For the
V4DF shuffle 4,0,2,6, removing that check lets the compiler generate a nice
vunpcklpd+vpermilpd (as opposed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52663
--- Comment #2 from dcb 2012-03-31 08:23:56 UTC ---
I also see the problem on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
48 matches
Mail list logo
