[Bug c++/54021] [c++0x] __builtin_constant_p should be constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54021 --- Comment #8 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-09-09 06:05:34 UTC --- Did you mean "constexpr bool a" instead of "book const a"? If so, I agree. But consider: bool const a = something complicated Is a a constant?

[Bug c++/54021] [c++0x] __builtin_constant_p should be constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54021 --- Comment #7 from David Stone 2012-09-09 06:00:37 UTC --- That seems to me like saying that `constexpr bool d = sizeof(x);` should be disallowed because it uses a non-constexpr. You're not using the value of x, just a property about it. Whether

[Bug debug/54533] New: breakpoint on C-style variadic function not hit at -O0 on amd64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54533 Bug #: 54533 Summary: breakpoint on C-style variadic function not hit at -O0 on amd64 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/54451] c++11/random.cc build failure when _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDINT_TR1 is not defined in config.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54451 rbmj at verizon dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rbmj at verizon dot net --- Comm

[Bug c++/54532] [C++0x][constexpr] internal error when initializing static constexpr with pointer to non-static member variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54532 --- Comment #1 from Chris 2012-09-09 02:24:57 UTC --- Created attachment 28155 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28155 preprocessed source

[Bug c++/54532] New: [C++0x][constexpr] internal error when initializing static constexpr with pointer to non-static member variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54532 Bug #: 54532 Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] internal error when initializing static constexpr with pointer to non-static member variable Classification: Unclassified Produc

[Bug libstdc++/54530] [4.8 regression] error: std::piecewise_construct causes a section type conflict with std::piecewise_construct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54530 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-09 00:35:25 UTC --- This is a compiler (back end) issue isn't it? That line of stl_pair.h cannot change - C++11 spells it out exactly like that - and is very very old. More generally, the recent library

[Bug c++/54521] g++ fails to call explicit constructors in the second step of copy initialization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54521 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely

[Bug target/54531] New: vpermilpd(x, 2 or 10) is a move

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54531 Bug #: 54531 Summary: vpermilpd(x, 2 or 10) is a move Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/54021] [c++0x] __builtin_constant_p should be constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54021 --- Comment #6 from Andy Lutomirski 2012-09-08 22:29:17 UTC --- I think that's correct. x isn't a standards-mandated constant expression, so __builtin_constant_p depends on optimization level and probably shouldn't be allowed as a constexpr.

[Bug libstdc++/54530] New: [4.8 regression] error: std::piecewise_construct causes a section type conflict with std::piecewise_construct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54530 Bug #: 54530 Summary: [4.8 regression] error: std::piecewise_construct causes a section type conflict with std::piecewise_construct Classification: Unclassified Product:

[Bug c++/54021] [c++0x] __builtin_constant_p should be constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54021 David Stone changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david at doublewise dot net --- Comment #5

[Bug preprocessor/54528] [4.8 Regression] system.h:288:78: error: integer overflow in expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54528 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crowl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/54529] dead code elimination deletes code adressed by referenced labels

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54529 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/54529] New: dead code elimination deletes code adressed by referenced labels

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54529 Bug #: 54529 Summary: dead code elimination deletes code adressed by referenced labels Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug preprocessor/54528] New: [4.8 Regression] system.h:288:78: error: integer overflow in expression

a-linux-gnu --target=hppa-linux-gnu --prefix=/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.8.0 --with-local-prefix=/home/dave/opt/gnu --enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --build=hppa-linux-gnu --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-java-gc=boehm --without-cloog --without-ppl --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,ada,lto Thread model: posix gcc version 4.8.0 20120908 (experimental) [trunk revision 191088] (GCC)

[Bug bootstrap/39572] x86_64-*-openbsd* is not supported yet

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39572 --- Comment #4 from Rob 2012-09-08 15:17:11 UTC --- Thank you, one and all.

[Bug c++/54527] wcout breaks on win32 console

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54527 --- Comment #1 from vurentjie 2012-09-08 14:19:45 UTC --- i did try follow this deeper, but the __ostream_insert specialization for wchar_t is not in ostream_insert.h, but it seems to be declared in ostream-inst.cc (libstd++ implementation) i m

[Bug c++/54527] New: wcout breaks on win32 console

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54527 Bug #: 54527 Summary: wcout breaks on win32 console Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker Priority: P3

[Bug c++/54521] g++ fails to call explicit constructors in the second step of copy initialization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54521 --- Comment #3 from Nikolka 2012-09-08 13:25:20 UTC --- In both cases (for g++ v4.7.1 and v4.8.0) the only compiler option was -std=c++11. Nothing magical.

[Bug rtl-optimization/54524] Spurious add on sum of bitshifts

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524 --- Comment #1 from Jan Smets 2012-09-08 13:18:48 UTC --- Created attachment 28152 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28152 testcase The result is correct with -fno-forward-propagate tUint64 is unsigned long long I meant. An

[Bug c++/54526] New: <:: is incorrectly treated as digraph <: followed by colon

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54526 Bug #: 54526 Summary: <:: is incorrectly treated as digraph <: followed by colon Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/54521] g++ fails to call explicit constructors in the second step of copy initialization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54521 --- Comment #2 from Nikolka 2012-09-08 12:36:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Works fine with 4.6.3, 4.7.2 20120716 (prerelease) and > 4.8.0 20120716 (experimental) > > As requested when submitting the bug, please provide the information re

[Bug c++/54506] Defaulted move constructors and move assignment operators are erroneously defined as deleted

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54506 --- Comment #2 from Nikolka 2012-09-08 12:17:24 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > How are you calling g++? /mingw-gcc-4.7.1/bin/g++ test.cpp -std=c++11 > What version are you using? Target: i686-pc-mingw32 Configured with: ../src/configure --p

[Bug tree-optimization/54525] New: Recognize (vec_)cond_expr in mask operation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54525 Bug #: 54525 Summary: Recognize (vec_)cond_expr in mask operation Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement P

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #54 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-09-08 11:00:36 UTC --- I've tested the patch myself now, it's ok, please commit it asap (but in future remember to send patches to the libstdc++ list as well as gcc-patches, I could have approved it soone

[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419 --- Comment #53 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-09-08 10:40:31 UTC --- Please post the patch to the right list and I'll approve it, all libstdc++ patches need to go to the libstdc++ list.

[Bug rtl-optimization/54524] New: Spurious add on sum of bitshifts

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524 Bug #: 54524 Summary: Spurious add on sum of bitshifts Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/54208] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] compilation error for ubound construct in PARAMETER statements

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2012-09-08 09:23:00 UTC --- Author: mikael Date: Sat Sep 8 09:22:54 2012 New Revision: 191090 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191090 Log: fortran/ PR fortran/54208 * simplify.c (sim

[Bug c++/54518] A problem using -O2 with g++4.5.0 and g++4.6.0 (see titi.cc)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54518 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libstdc++/54523] srand() initializing seed for random() function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54523 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|jm3dev at gma