http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #6 from davidxl 2012-04-13 05:01:56
UTC ---
I think you indirectly proved my point (see below) :)
(In reply to comment #5)
> Maintainers (those who decide) are too few and they either do not care or do
> not have time to fix these th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-04-13
03:29:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> One more thing regarding movco/movli ... do you think it's OK to use them also
> to do atomics on types < SImode? As far as I can see it should be safe to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #33 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-13
02:25:48 UTC ---
Thanks Manu for the reminder, I have a couple of pending things in my TODO and
then I will resurrect it for the great 'caret times' ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52946
--- Comment #3 from Lund 2012-04-13 01:08:12 UTC ---
OK, my mistake. I did not realize Apple's gcc was that different.
In case, anyone else comes across this issue, I was able to work around it by
installing clang/LLVM and get the 'blocks' librar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
01:03:28 UTC ---
Maintainers (those who decide) are too few and they either do not care or do
not have time to fix these things. Existing or new contributors that are paid
to do something specifi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52968
Bug #: 52968
Summary: Call to type-bound procedure produces wrongly rejected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52955
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-13
00:09:12 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00158.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52967
Bug #: 52967
Summary: Segmentation fault on std::vector destruction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52966
Bug #: 52966
Summary: ill-formed template constexpr functions are accepted?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #4 from davidxl 2012-04-12 23:28:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yep, a dup.
>
> I am sorry David, but many of these deficiencies are well-known. What GCC
> sorely needs is people working on fixing them, and that is an issue th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52964
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-12
23:25:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > With -fsyntax-only, the warning is not emitted -- any reason for that?
>
> Yes because -fsyntax-only does not do templat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52964
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
23:23:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> With -fsyntax-only, the warning is not emitted -- any reason for that?
Yes because -fsyntax-only does not do template instantatiations at all IIRC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52964
--- Comment #3 from davidxl 2012-04-12 23:19:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> And with trunk we print:
>
> pr52964.cc: In instantiation of ‘struct S1<4>’:
> pr52964.cc:2:49: required from ‘struct S2’
> pr52964.cc:3:45: required from ‘vo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52962
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52958
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52964
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #3 from davidxl 2012-04-12 23:11:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36478 .
thanks. I tried -Wempty-body, gcc gives warning as expected:
emptyif.cpp: In function 'int test(int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29280
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52938
--- Comment #12 from Abdul Tohmaz 2012-04-12
23:07:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> The benefits and problems of reference-counted strings are well known and it's
> not going to be changed now, std::string is stable and effectively frozen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52962
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
23:06:20 UTC ---
That requires tracking of macros.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52964
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
23:04:05 UTC ---
pinskia@server:~$ ~/treecombine-gcc/bin/gcc t.cc
t.cc: In instantiation of ‘struct S1<4>’:
t.cc:4:49: required from ‘struct S2’
t.cc:5:45: required from ‘void foo(T) [with T = int]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52959
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
22:59:55 UTC ---
If it is about how clear suggestion the warning gives, then it is a dup of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29280 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52965
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-12
22:56:05 UTC ---
I don't think it's a bug.
G++ doesn't ignore access checking, you never use the name PVT so there's no
violation. The type exists, you just can't access the name PVT.
But you can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
22:54:23 UTC ---
Works for me:
pinskia@server:~$ ~/treecombine-gcc/bin/gcc t.c -W -S -Wall
t.c: In function ‘test’:
t.c:5:2: warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value
[-Wparen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52959
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
22:51:47 UTC ---
I think this is the same as http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52277 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
22:49:24 UTC ---
Yes, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36478 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52965
Bug #: 52965
Summary: c++11 - subclass is private, but g++ ignores access
modifier when using auto
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
22:47:23 UTC ---
I think we had this warning and then removed it. Let me find the history which
I think is in bugzilla already.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52822
Jeffrey Yasskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52828
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2012-04-12 22:26:28
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Apr 12 22:26:24 2012
New Revision: 186397
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186397
Log:
PR target/52828
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52822
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2012-04-12
22:26:08 UTC ---
Author: jyasskin
Date: Thu Apr 12 22:26:02 2012
New Revision: 186396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186396
Log:
Fix PR52822 by explicitly checking for object
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52964
Bug #: 52964
Summary: No warning on negative array size in template
instantatiation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52963
Bug #: 52963
Summary: Missing error on pack expansion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52962
Bug #: 52962
Summary: Column number incorrect in error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
Bug #: 52961
Summary: Missing warning on empty if
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52960
Bug #: 52960
Summary: Missing warnings on ambiguous source : function decl
vs local var decl
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52915
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52959
Bug #: 52959
Summary: Missing typo suggestions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52958
Bug #: 52958
Summary: Missing warning on missed parehthesis
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
Bug #: 52957
Summary: Missing suggestions on '=' and '==' confusion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #32 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-12
21:58:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> The effect of this patch on overload resolution diagnostics is problematic:
> wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’:
> wa2.C:6:6: error: no matching functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52956
Bug #: 52956
Summary: Missing overflow warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52955
Bug #: 52955
Summary: Missing warning on wrong sizeof usage
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52954
--- Comment #1 from davidxl 2012-04-12 21:56:07
UTC ---
Another example:
constexpr int arr_size = 42;
constexpr int N = 44;
void f(int);
int test() {
int arr[arr_size];
// ...
f(arr[N]);
// ...
if (N < arr_size) return arr[N];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #12 from Laurent Aflonsi 2012-04-12
21:55:42 UTC ---
Thanks very much Paolo. It works fine on SH4 also.
Is that enough to push the patch ?
Laurent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52954
Bug #: 52954
Summary: Missing bounds check warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52953
--- Comment #1 from meng at g dot clemson.edu 2012-04-12 21:53:36 UTC ---
another example showing violation of c++11 3.3.3/4
BEGIN ---
int main ()
{
if (int a = 1)
{
void a (); // 1
}
e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #31 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-12
21:44:23 UTC ---
The effect of this patch on overload resolution diagnostics is problematic:
-
void f();
void f(int,int);
int main()
{
f(1);
}
-
wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’:
wa2.C:6:6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52822
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2012-04-12
21:42:00 UTC ---
Author: jyasskin
Date: Thu Apr 12 21:41:55 2012
New Revision: 186394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186394
Log:
Fix PR52822 (stable_partition move-assigns ob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44811
D W changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drwowe at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #3 from D W 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52953
Bug #: 52953
Summary: g++-4.7.0 fails to detect function parameter name
redeclarations.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52951
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31754
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Bug #: 52952
Summary: Wformat location info is bad (wrong column number)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52775
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2012-04-12
21:00:17 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Apr 12 21:00:07 2012
New Revision: 186392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186392
Log:
[gcc]
2012-04-12 Michael Meissner
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52822
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey Yasskin 2012-04-12
20:59:14 UTC ---
Author: jyasskin
Date: Thu Apr 12 20:59:09 2012
New Revision: 186391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186391
Log:
Fix PR52822 (stable_partition move-assigns obj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52948
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-12
20:54:35 UTC ---
Indeed, removing the lines
TODO_dump_func/* todo_flags_finish */
fixes the PR (I don't have write permissions).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52951
Bug #: 52951
Summary: internal compiler error with c++11 initializer lists
and C arrays
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46400
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner 2012-04-12
19:16:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 27145
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27145
Test case from EMAN2
Here's yet another test case that fails (on powerpc64-linux) and is fixed on
m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52946
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 18:37:47 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Apr 12 18:37:42 2012
New Revision: 186388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186388
Log:
PR target/52932
* config/i386/avx2in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52775
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner 2012-04-12
17:10:38 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Apr 12 17:10:27 2012
New Revision: 186387
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186387
Log:
[gcc]
2012-04-11 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-12 17:10:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Uros, I've slightly updated your patch: idx and vector were intermixed.
The same cure should be applied to vpermd insn. Fortunately, this allowed us to
vecto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-12 17:07:56
UTC ---
Created attachment 27144
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27144
Even more updated patch
Patch that also fixes vpermd insn.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-04-12
17:05:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 27143
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27143
Simple testcase
This should be a simpler testcase. What happens is that we are
attempting to devirt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52950
Bug #: 52950
Summary: --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace exports
symbol twice.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Johnson 2012-04-12 16:39:32
UTC ---
FYI: based on a discussion from quite some time ago [1], it seems that the
Linux kernel folks would be "tickled pink" to have this feature, and discussed
several potential ways to imple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Daniel Richard G. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-12
16:29:32 UTC ---
In mainline, for x86_64-linux, the below patchlet indeed avoids the valgrind
errors and passes make check, make check-performance.
Index: src/c++98/mt_allocator.cc
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 16:25:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 27142
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27142
pr52734.2.patch
Another tentative patch. Also not precise, but a simpler approach.
Now te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52946
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-12
16:15:24 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Apr 12 16:15:13 2012
New Revision: 186384
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186384
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-12 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52949
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-12
16:12:15 UTC ---
this is no different to;
struct Vector
{
static const int i = sizeof(member_); // error
int member_;
static const int j = sizeof(member_); // ok
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52949
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52944
--- Comment #4 from Mike Frysinger 2012-04-12
15:42:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
wouldn't it though ? there's still a top level union there surrounding all the
members. so flattening it, i'd get three choices:
- th_block; th_data
- th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jakub at redhat dot com |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52947
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Emrich 2012-04-12
15:36:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I remember Kai did surgery in this place. Did you identify a patch that
> caused
> this regression? My bet would be
>
> 2011-03-25 Kai Tietz
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52944
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-12
15:28:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> if you look at the tftp example, you'd see that your proposed struct does not
> work. the protocol needs two flexible array members at different starting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52948
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52949
Bug #: 52949
Summary: decltype too sensitive to order of declarations?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52944
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.7
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52937
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52549
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #9 from Laurent Aflonsi 2012-04-12
15:05:25 UTC ---
Paolo,
I ve discovered that the encoding of M_key is encoded differently for each
thread-implementation. On pthread implementation M_key is an integer, whereas
on others it is point
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-12
15:00:25 UTC ---
I'm testing
Index: convert.c
===
--- convert.c (revision 186373)
+++ convert.c (working copy)
@@ -44,11 +44,6 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17122
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkapela at poczta dot fm
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
rhabarber1848 at web dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rhabarber1848 at web dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52948
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|UNRESOLVED: |UNRESOLVED: selfassign.c in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-12
14:26:04 UTC ---
> Indeed, it should be tested only when weak aliases are supposed. There is some
> dg trick for that...
Which one between '/* { dg-require-alias "" } */' and '/* { dg-require-w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
