http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50211
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53728
--- Comment #11 from Ryan Hill 2013-04-04
06:54:22 UTC ---
Agreed then. Thanks for looking into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53728
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-04 06:41:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Any chance of looking at this before the 4.6 branch closes? If not we can
> work
> around it locally.
I have analysed the failure, and it is in fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56825
--- Comment #4 from Evgeny Televitckiy 2013-04-04
06:41:38 UTC ---
Ye, I thought it was something along those lines. Thanks for the clarification,
now I understand the reason why this paragraph appear in standard.
Yet, appealing to the end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46352
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53728
Ryan Hill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43056
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56822
--- Comment #4 from verdagon at gmail dot com 2013-04-04 00:37:22 UTC ---
Thanks for the heads up, I submitted a better bug report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55487
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
--- Comment #3 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com 2013-04-03 21:30:31 UTC ---
Agh you're right Andrew. Not the first time that rule has caught me out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55487
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin 2013-04-03
21:10:52 UTC ---
Seems to occur in emit_reload_insns.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55487
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin 2013-04-03
21:00:49 UTC ---
In reload_as_needed, the reload processing for the following insn the
note:
(gdb) p debug_rtx (insn)
(jump_insn 25 22 26 3 (set (pc)
(if_then_else (eq (reg/f:DI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin 2013-04-03
20:58:25 UTC ---
Another tentative patch.
This moves the namespace release after the call to gfc_undo_symbols.
With it, one gets among a trail of other errors:
bug_report.f03:322.8:
select ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
20:58:22 UTC ---
Not having analyzed the testcase in any detail, apparently clang++ behaves
exactly like GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-03
20:53:00 UTC ---
I think:
: foo( const_cast< const foo& >(f) )
calls the copy constructor which templates can never be a copy constructor.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin 2013-04-03
20:33:59 UTC ---
The following tentative patch uses the recent multiple change set facility.
It is not sufficient though. It triggers an assertion in
enforce_single_undo_checkpoint, called from gfc_com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher 2013-04-03
20:29:58 UTC ---
Time for another attempt please? Now that stage1 is open?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56819
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2013-04-03
19:36:03 UTC ---
gfc_match_select_type creates a new namespace before proceeding with parsing,
which it deletes on match failure. However, symbols (from that namespace) that
may have been create
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56799
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
--- Comment #4 from Mike Hommey 2013-04-03
18:35:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 29800
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29800
nsDiskCacheMap.gcda
I can reproduce with the preprocessed file and this gcda with gcc 4.7.2-5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
Bug #: 56836
Summary: Template delegating constructor not calling target
constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54858
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54486
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54363
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53174
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56835
--- Comment #1 from verdagon at gmail dot com 2013-04-03 18:06:09 UTC ---
*** Bug 56822 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56822
verdagon at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Reso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56835
Bug #: 56835
Summary: std::promise seems broken on 10.8 lion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55274
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56825
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
17:27:03 UTC ---
Ah, ah. Thanks Jason.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-03
17:21:52 UTC ---
I guess it depends on the meaning of "obtained". If "obtained" refers to the
form of the expression, G++ is following the standard. If it refers to the
place where the pointe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
Vincent changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55274
Sergey Tachenov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stachenov at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-03 16:42:18 UTC ---
r197425 for arm
2013-04-03 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR target/56809
* config/arm/arm.c (is_jump_table): Use next_active_insn instead of
next_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-03
16:06:46 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 3 16:06:26 2013
New Revision: 197432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197432&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/55702
* tsan.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-03
16:02:48 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 3 16:01:38 2013
New Revision: 197430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/55702
* tsan.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56833
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472
--- Comment #11 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-04-03
15:51:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> So are we going to backport this one?
Sorry, I've missed this one when backporting other stuff. I can do this
tomorrow, the patch is safe. H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
--- Comment #3 from Mike Hommey 2013-04-03
15:46:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29798
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29798
Preprocessed file
This is the preprocessed file.
In case that helps, the gcc it failed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #11 from Joel Sherrill 2013-04-03
15:39:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 29797
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29797
Patch for 4.6 and 4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #9 from Sebastian Huber
2013-04-03 15:23:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Patch committed to 4.7, 4.8 and SVN head.
>
> Closing.
Can you please commit this also to the 4.6 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56834
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54936
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #7 from Joel Sherrill 2013-04-03 14:43:16
UTC ---
Created attachment 29796
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29796
Patch to libcpp/configure.ac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56817
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56737
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-03
14:07:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> 2013-04-03 Tobias Burnus
>
> Backport from mainline:
> 2013-03-29 Tobias Burnus
>
> PR fortran/56737
> *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56780
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Burgess
2013-04-03 14:04:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29795
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29795
Patch to handle --disable-install-libiberty correctly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56737
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-03
14:02:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 3 14:00:20 2013
New Revision: 197412
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-03 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56199
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
13:49:08 UTC ---
Excellent. I have a patch in testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-03
13:45:57 UTC ---
void arithmetic is a deliberate GNU extension, so it should be a pedwarn rather
than permerror.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #26 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-03
13:37:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Looking at it more, if the change to emit *this ={v} {CLOBBER}; in cleanups
> rather than just at the end of function was desirable, then IMHO we ju
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56834
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2013-04-03
13:10:41 UTC ---
While at it, you may also want to clean up the duplicate
define_expand for "cbranch4".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56813
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-03
13:10:22 UTC ---
Started with Steven Bosscher's http://gcc.gnu.org/r197266, still occurs at
r197407, reproducible with a cross.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56834
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
13:07:56 UTC ---
Sorry, my fault. I can reproduce in 4_8-branch too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56834
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
13:06:57 UTC ---
So this happens only in mainline, right? I can't reproduce in 4_8-branch. In
that case, doesn't look like a library issue (nothing changed lately in this
area)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56834
Bug #: 56834
Summary: Errors in with
--enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace and
-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Versio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56833
vishnu ks changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |other
--- Comment #1 from vishnu ks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56832
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Williams 2013-04-03
12:48:58 UTC ---
The crash seems to only happen when the objects in the intializer list have
members of type std::bitset.
When I change this member to a std::set the code compiles fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56833
Bug #: 56833
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Valid register is over written by
reload pass
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56832
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Paolo C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56832
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Williams 2013-04-03
12:29:46 UTC ---
Apologies, the file failed to attach the first time. Attached now.
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 29793 [details]
> preprocess dump from g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56832
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Williams 2013-04-03
12:28:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 29793
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29793
preprocess dump from g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-03
12:27:56 UTC ---
Looking at it more, if the change to emit *this ={v} {CLOBBER}; in cleanups
rather than just at the end of function was desirable, then IMHO we just want
to adjust the ehcleanu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56832
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #35 from Rainer Orth 2013-04-03 12:19:13
UTC ---
Created attachment 29792
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29792
new testcase
After some digging, I found a bit of what's going on: for a long time (before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
12:18:37 UTC ---
Ok, let's handle that separately.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56832
Bug #: 56832
Summary: g++-4.7.2 falls over when compiling vector
intialization list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56830
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2013-04-03
12:18:03 UTC ---
197404 FAIL too.
I'll try to reduce testcase
g++ -O0 PASS
g++ -O1 FAIL
I fail select -f... option responsible to FAIL due
after
gcc -c -Q -O1 --help=optimizers > 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener 2013-04-03
12:12:40 UTC ---
I still don't believe it - the patch only changed the position of two bits
in the LTO stream. It makes it incompatible to any previous LTO bytecode
though. Thus, can you che
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-04-03
12:12:15 UTC ---
BTW, I also see that in c-family/c.opt -Wpointer-arith is not LangEnabledBy(C
ObjC C++ ObjC++,Wpedantic). If it was, then -Werror=pedantic will automatically
handle -Werror=poi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56828
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-03
12:10:37 UTC ---
long double on PPC is not exactly IEEE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-03
12:08:02 UTC ---
Ah, the committed patch (#c21) was different from the one I've been testing it
with (#c12).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3, 4.8.0
Summary
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo