[Bug c++/53646] Surprising effects of cxx11 vs cxx98 ABI compatibility

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646 --- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-14 06:32:19 UTC --- I don't see the general problem. C++98 and C++11 code should be ABI-compatible in general; the incompatibility in this case is a bug.

[Bug c++/53650] [4.7/4.8 Regression] large array causes huge memory use

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53650 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 f

[Bug rtl-optimization/53652] *andn* isn't used for vectorization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53652 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/53666] New: -std=c++0x cause cc1plus to eat up RAM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53666 Bug #: 53666 Summary: -std=c++0x cause cc1plus to eat up RAM Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P

[Bug testsuite/53665] New: test g++.dg/abi/mangle50.C has duplicate scan-assembler lines

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53665 Bug #: 53665 Summary: test g++.dg/abi/mangle50.C has duplicate scan-assembler lines Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/53455] boost::python segfault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455 --- Comment #10 from mbec at gmto dot org 2012-06-14 00:47:04 UTC --- found the OP crashtest source at the tail of .ii attachment file, that compiles and runs fine with my new rpm.

[Bug testsuite/53664] New: neon-testgen.ml generates duplicate scan-assembler directives

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664 Bug #: 53664 Summary: neon-testgen.ml generates duplicate scan-assembler directives Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/53663] 4.7 inconsistent inline handling of bool within union

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |tree-optimization --- Comment #1 from And

[Bug c/53662] Cannot build static gcc on i686 linux gnu with -m64 support.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53662 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-13 23:12:16 UTC --- gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org See http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

[Bug testsuite/20771] Duplicate PCH test names

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20771 Janis Johnson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug testsuite/20771] Duplicate PCH test names

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20771 --- Comment #5 from Janis Johnson 2012-06-13 22:56:00 UTC --- Author: janis Date: Wed Jun 13 22:55:56 2012 New Revision: 188540 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188540 Log: PR testsuite/20771 * lib/dg-pch.exp (dg-fla

[Bug c/53663] New: 4.7 inconsistent inline handling of bool within union

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663 Bug #: 53663 Summary: 4.7 inconsistent inline handling of bool within union Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/53605] [4.7 Regression] Compiler ICEs in size_binop_loc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605 --- Comment #7 from davidxl 2012-06-13 22:32:20 UTC --- thanks for the fix. Is the fix going to be in gcc-4_7 branch? David

[Bug c++/53455] boost::python segfault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455 --- Comment #9 from mbec at gmto dot org 2012-06-13 22:14:31 UTC --- maybe related: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6919 Had similar crash issue. Though in my case (which may well be different from the OP) rebuilding boost with new flags fi

[Bug debug/49888] VTA: -O2 -g variable value changes, it does not change in the source

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888 --- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil 2012-06-13 22:09:40 UTC --- Great, thanks! Backport definitely not needed by me.

[Bug debug/49888] VTA: -O2 -g variable value changes, it does not change in the source

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888 --- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-13 21:57:39 UTC --- Fixed in mainline. Is there interest in a backport?

[Bug debug/47624] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43077-1.c -O1 line 42 c == 3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624 --- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-13 21:49:09 UTC --- Fixed on trunk. I'm going to look into backporting it.

[Bug debug/49888] VTA: -O2 -g variable value changes, it does not change in the source

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888 --- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-13 21:43:54 UTC --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Jun 13 21:43:51 2012 New Revision: 188531 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188531 Log: gcc/ChangeLog: PR debug/49888 * var-tracking.c:

[Bug debug/47624] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43077-1.c -O1 line 42 c == 3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624 --- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-13 21:43:24 UTC --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Jun 13 21:43:19 2012 New Revision: 188530 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188530 Log: PR debug/47624 * var-tracking.c (loc_exp_dep_poo

[Bug c/53662] Cannot build static gcc on i686 linux gnu with -m64 support.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53662 --- Comment #2 from Armin K. 2012-06-13 21:17:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > > That means you need a 64-bit capable binutils. > > Just a guess, but you might need to use --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu to > make a cross compiler for x8

[Bug c/53662] Cannot build static gcc on i686 linux gnu with -m64 support.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53662 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-13 21:12:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > Assembler messages: > Fatal error: no compiled in support for x86_64 > configure:3058: $? = 1 That means you need a 64-bit capable binutils. Just a guess

[Bug c/53662] New: Cannot build static gcc on i686 linux gnu with -m64 support.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53662 Bug #: 53662 Summary: Cannot build static gcc on i686 linux gnu with -m64 support. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/53661] New: Wrong narrowing conversion warning with -std=c++11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661 Bug #: 53661 Summary: Wrong narrowing conversion warning with -std=c++11 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/52983] [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3243

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983 --- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-13 20:42:00 UTC --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Jun 13 20:41:55 2012 New Revision: 188527 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188527 Log: PR debug/52983 PR debug/48866 * dce.c (word_dce_

[Bug debug/48866] gcc hangs when -g is set

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866 --- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-13 20:42:00 UTC --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Jun 13 20:41:55 2012 New Revision: 188527 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188527 Log: PR debug/52983 PR debug/48866 * dce.c (word_dce

[Bug c++/53660] New: function pointer conversion function template with nested-name-specifier ignored

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53660 Bug #: 53660 Summary: function pointer conversion function template with nested-name-specifier ignored Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status

[Bug tree-optimization/51581] Integer division by constant is not vectorized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51581 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at

[Bug target/53659] New: ARM: Using -mcpu=cortex-a9 option results in bad performance for Cortex-A9 processor in C-Ray phoronix benchmark

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659 Bug #: 53659 Summary: ARM: Using -mcpu=cortex-a9 option results in bad performance for Cortex-A9 processor in C-Ray phoronix benchmark Classification: Unclassified Produ

[Bug target/53568] SH Target: Add support for bswap built-ins

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53568 --- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2012-06-13 18:45:56 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Wed Jun 13 18:45:17 2012 New Revision: 188524 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188524 Log: PR target/53568 * config/sh/sh.md (bswapsi2)

[Bug c++/53650] [4.7/4.8 Regression] large array causes huge memory use

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53650 David Stone changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david at doublewise dot net --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/53647] [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20011229-1.c and gcc.c-torture/compile/pr25311.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53647 --- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 17:47:11 UTC --- Author: hjl Date: Wed Jun 13 17:46:59 2012 New Revision: 188523 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188523 Log: Set cache values from -mtune PR target

[Bug middle-end/53590] compiler fails to generate SIMD instruction for FP division

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590 --- Comment #8 from Georg 2012-06-13 17:11:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > Yes, it's a fallout of -fnon-call-exceptions that stems from the Java > semantics. GNAT GPL doesn't care about Java so it implements more aggressive > dead code el

[Bug c++/53658] internal compiler error -- segmentation fault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53658 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot

[Bug lto/53604] ld reports errors using lto after upgrading from gcc-4.6.2 to gcc-4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604 --- Comment #9 from Paul Scruby 2012-06-13 16:44:12 UTC --- Unfortunately I still have this linking issue with gcc-4.7.1-RC-20120606 and binutils-2.22 so I don't think it's a dup for PR 53572. I'll try to make a standalone project tomorrow which

[Bug target/53649] ICE when using 'C' x86 asm constraint

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53649 --- Comment #3 from Steven Fuerst 2012-06-13 15:46:13 UTC --- Oops sorry. The source package is 4.7.0-13, but I'm still actually using the binaries from 4.7.0-11, which was released before May 30.

[Bug target/53649] ICE when using 'C' x86 asm constraint

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53649 --- Comment #2 from Steven Fuerst 2012-06-13 15:40:19 UTC --- I'm using the version of 4.7 packaged in Debian unstable. It apparently contains everything up until June 12 in the 4.7 branch, plus a few other patches.

[Bug c++/53658] New: internal compiler error -- segmentation fault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53658 Bug #: 53658 Summary: internal compiler error -- segmentation fault Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c++/51033] generic vector subscript and shuffle support was not added to C++

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug c++/53646] Surprising effects of cxx11 vs cxx98 ABI compatibility

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |c++ --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakel

[Bug libstdc++/53657] New: [C++11] pair(pair&&) move constructor is non-trivial

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657 Bug #: 53657 Summary: [C++11] pair(pair&&) move constructor is non-trivial Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ABI

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled but supported by as (Solaris & Linux)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #3 from Martin 2012-06-13 14:40:06 UTC --- I can confirm that the attached patch solves the AVX problem for me as well (means on Solaris and CentOS), wether it is a "proper" one or not... Thanks! (BTW, now the compilation on Solaris

[Bug middle-end/53433] [4.8 Regression] ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:424 during lto-bootstrap

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53433 --- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2012-06-13 14:36:23 UTC --- Created attachment 27615 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27615 lto_bootstrap.patch The following patch "fixes" the issue for me. (Found by blindly poking ar

[Bug lto/53604] ld reports errors using lto after upgrading from gcc-4.6.2 to gcc-4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604 --- Comment #8 from Paul Scruby 2012-06-13 14:34:38 UTC --- Cheers Jon, I'll try this afternoon...

[Bug c++/53651] [4.7/4.8 Regression] [C++11] seg fault when specifying using decltype(...)::method

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53651 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at redhat dot com Target Milestone|---

[Bug lto/53604] ld reports errors using lto after upgrading from gcc-4.6.2 to gcc-4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-13 14:28:54 UTC --- 4.7.1 is due out Real Soon Now, the release candidate can be found on any GNU mirror: ftp://ftp.mirrorservice.org/sites/sourceware.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.1-RC-20120606/

[Bug c++/53524] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsuppressible enum comparison warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524 --- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-13 14:01:10 UTC --- Richard: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00236.html

[Bug fortran/53537] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Explicit IMPORT of renamed USE-associated symbol fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53537 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug c++/53524] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsuppressible enum comparison warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524 --- Comment #22 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-13 13:49:34 UTC --- Was this fixed?

[Bug c/47435] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in c_finish_case (c-typeck.c:8859) on invalid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47435 bsreram85 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bsreram85 at gmail dot com --

[Bug c/53656] sequence point bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53656 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-06-13 12:47:23 UTC --- Looks similar to bug 48814.

[Bug tree-optimization/53647] [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20011229-1.c and gcc.c-torture/compile/pr25311.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53647 William J. Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/53647] [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20011229-1.c and gcc.c-torture/compile/pr25311.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53647 --- Comment #11 from William J. Schmidt 2012-06-13 12:34:02 UTC --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Jun 13 12:33:55 2012 New Revision: 188509 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188509 Log: 2012-06-13 Bill Schmidt PR tree-op

[Bug lto/53604] ld reports errors using lto after upgrading from gcc-4.6.2 to gcc-4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov 2012-06-13 12:30:27 UTC --- Paul, I used April version of Linaro gcc toolchain so you may want to give it a try. If it still doesn't work you'll probably need to attach a repro code here.

[Bug fortran/53643] [OOP] ICE (segfault) with INTENT(OUT) CLASS array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53643 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/53656] New: sequence point bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53656 Bug #: 53656 Summary: sequence point bug Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug libstdc++/53646] Surprising effects of cxx11 vs cxx98 ABI compatibility

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646 --- Comment #15 from Michael Matz 2012-06-13 12:07:38 UTC --- I think so, yes. I initially really reported this as general c++ problem, with the testcase of course being about a concrete instance of the problem but not meaning to specifically co

[Bug c++/53599] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc-4.7.1_rc20120606 segfaults compiling boost.karma

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53599 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/53643] [OOP] ICE (segfault) with INTENT(OUT) CLASS array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53643 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-13 11:57:51 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Wed Jun 13 11:57:45 2012 New Revision: 188507 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188507 Log: 2012-06-13 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/53

[Bug lto/53604] ld reports errors using lto after upgrading from gcc-4.6.2 to gcc-4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604 Paul Scruby changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/53597] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] F95/F2003 constraint no longer triggers: un-SAVED default-initialized module variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53597 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-13 11:56:18 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Wed Jun 13 11:56:08 2012 New Revision: 188506 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188506 Log: 2012-06-13 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/53

[Bug libstdc++/53646] Surprising effects of cxx11 vs cxx98 ABI compatibility

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/53651] [4.7/4.8 Regression] [C++11] seg fault when specifying using decltype(...)::method

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53651 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code Status|

[Bug tree-optimization/53645] Missed optimization for vector integer division lowering

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53645 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-13 09:46:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I think we've talked about enhancing the pattern recognizer to expand it as > mult at the tree level, reusing parts of the expander code for that. I > b

[Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.7/4.8 regression] vectorization causes loop unrolling test slowdown as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533 --- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-13 09:43:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #10) > > But maybe allowing const_vector in (some of) the define_insn_and_split would > > be the way to go ... > > Maybe. It cert

[Bug target/53649] ICE when using 'C' x86 asm constraint

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53649 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code Target

[Bug libstdc++/53646] Surprising effects of cxx11 vs cxx98 ABI compatibility

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug fortran/53655] [OOP] CLASS-related warnings: "__copy" defined but not used; "default initializer" warnings

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53655 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-13 09:20:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > (I think sym->attr.referenced gets set for "allocatable" dummies, thus, no > warning is printed.) (As clarification: That wasn't a remark to the issue (b) b

[Bug fortran/53655] [OOP] CLASS-related warnings: "__copy" defined but not used; "default initializer" warnings

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53655 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic CC|

[Bug fortran/53655] New: []

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53655 Bug #: 53655 Summary: [] Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug c++/53654] move constructor incorrectly delete copy constructor defined by template

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53654 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-13 08:48:44 UTC --- This behaviour is correct and required by the standard. The template constructor is not a copy constructor, so a copy constructor is still implicitly-declared and defined as deleted

[Bug target/53621] [SH] Frame pointers not generated with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on GCC 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621 --- Comment #18 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-06-13 08:48:40 UTC --- Please go ahead with the one liner in #15. It looks more informative than a magic number 256 - 4.

[Bug target/53621] [SH] Frame pointers not generated with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on GCC 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621 --- Comment #17 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 08:22:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > > +/* { dg-options "-fstack-usage -fomit-frame-pointer" { target { sh-*-* } } > > } > */ > > Looks OK. Pre-approved. thanks. by the way I just

[Bug target/53621] [SH] Frame pointers not generated with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on GCC 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621 --- Comment #16 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-06-13 08:09:45 UTC --- > +/* { dg-options "-fstack-usage -fomit-frame-pointer" { target { sh-*-* } } } */ Looks OK. Pre-approved.

[Bug c++/53654] New: move constructor incorrectly delete copy constructor defined by template

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53654 Bug #: 53654 Summary: move constructor incorrectly delete copy constructor defined by template Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONF

[Bug target/53621] [SH] Frame pointers not generated with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on GCC 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621 --- Comment #15 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 07:47:16 UTC --- +/* { dg-options "-fstack-usage -fomit-frame-pointer" { target { sh-*-* } } } */ (In reply to comment #14) > l(In reply to comment #13) > > I thought that the test depends

[Bug target/53621] [SH] Frame pointers not generated with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on GCC 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621 --- Comment #14 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 07:45:37 UTC --- l(In reply to comment #13) > I thought that the test depends the optimization level and it assumes > -O0. I agree that enforcing -fomit-frame-pointer gives more deterministi

[Bug target/53621] [SH] Frame pointers not generated with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on GCC 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621 --- Comment #13 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-06-13 07:39:13 UTC --- I thought that the test depends the optimization level and it assumes -O0. I agree that enforcing -fomit-frame-pointer gives more deterministic result, though it could break curren

[Bug target/53621] [SH] Frame pointers not generated with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on GCC 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621 --- Comment #12 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 07:14:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Looks a problem with the test. It should be tweaked with adding > > #elif defined (__sh__) > # define SIZE 252 > > for frame pointer save area

[Bug fortran/53653] New: [IR Tracking] Disallow abstract/unlimited-polymorphic types in array constructors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53653 Bug #: 53653 Summary: [IR Tracking] Disallow abstract/unlimited-polymorphic types in array constructors Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Statu