http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57071
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #14 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-26
06:16:04 UTC ---
Understood. The idea is that one would write:
QString str = QString("%1 %2").arg(42).arg(43);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57056
Ondrej Bilka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29930|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-26
05:05:48 UTC ---
Note for Thiago: please be aware of the risks of returning an rvalue reference,
as opposed to just a value. The following codes will fail at runtime:
Qstring const& a=QString("
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57056
Steven Fuerst changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||svfuerst at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57078
Bug #: 57078
Summary: Unhelpful -Wunused-variable warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56716
--- Comment #6 from Greg 2013-04-25 22:32:13 UTC
---
> Can you please provide a backtrace from the crash?
I'll be happy to provide a backtrace from the crash. It will take a day or so,
as I'm such a novice that I don't yet know how to c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57077
Bug #: 57077
Summary: [4.9 Regression] LTO bootstrap failure with
profiledbootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57076
Bug #: 57076
Summary: @ in the src directory name causes failure while
building of gcc.info
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56265
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2013-04-25 20:52:39
UTC ---
> So yes, I'm in favor of turning the calls into builtin_trap or
> builtin_unreachable. Not sure which one. How do I get their call
> graph nodes?
cgraph_get_create_node (bu
ile the package jam-2.5-14
on gcc-4.9 trunk dated 20130425 on an AMD x86_64 box.
The compiler said
execunix.c: In function 'execcmd':
execunix.c:322:1: error: control flow in the middle of basic block 10
}
^
execunix.c:322:1: error: control flow in the middle of basic block 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57074
Bug #: 57074
Summary: gcc-4.8.0 libgcj regression on 32bit Power
architecture
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
--- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist 2013-04-25 19:19:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Updated patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01517.html
>
> This one works. Thanks.
Thanks for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist 2013-04-25 19:19:05
UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Thu Apr 25 19:16:46 2013
New Revision: 198318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198318&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 57028 Bootstrap regression wrt zlib.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45359
linuxball at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linuxball at netsca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57071
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Bug #: 57073
Summary: __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0
- 2.0 * (K%2)"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57072
Bug #: 57072
Summary: bogus "is used uninitialized" warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57071
Bug #: 57071
Summary: Optimize (-1)**k to 1 - 2 * mod(K, 2)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50261
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56859
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56265
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-25
15:52:45 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk so far, will backport to 4.7/4.8 later on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-25
15:52:16 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Apr 25 15:51:57 2013
New Revision: 198308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/57066
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57002
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ARM |arm
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57054
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-25 15:11:00 UTC ---
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2013-04-25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2013-04-25
14:46:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suppose more selectively removing edges would be best. Eventually this is
> done to cater for expansions of builtin calls to non-calls? Then may
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56686
--- Comment #7 from lostdj at gmail dot com 2013-04-25 14:09:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 29939
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29939
testcase
It's funny that I just wanted to report almost identical issue. Can't beli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57063
--- Comment #4 from Nikolka 2013-04-25 13:51:21 UTC ---
It looks like the root of the issue is that static_cast produces an expression
with wrong value category sometimes.
#include
#include
#define PRINT_VALUE(...) \
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-25
13:50:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Updated patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01517.html
This one works. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-25
13:43:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I wonder if std::logb(-NaN) should also return +NaN.
It turned out that in NaN's case it doesn't matter.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57069
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2013-04-25 12:47:24
UTC ---
Someone forcefully killed cc1plus, and the assembler error is just due to the
incomplete input. Does FreeBSD have an OOM killer like Linux?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55117
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-25
12:42:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 29938
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29938
FE patch for namelist read with type extension (+ test case)
Regarding the support of type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57069
Bug #: 57069
Summary: cmake compilation error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-25
11:47:34 UTC ---
I wonder if std::logb(-NaN) should also return +NaN.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51747
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-25
11:30:48 UTC ---
This is http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3539.html#1467
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56971
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56976
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56971
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #20 from Bernd Schmidt 2013-04-25
10:12:12 UTC ---
Patch is OK, thanks Jakub - you were too fast for me on this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57065
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-25
10:06:24 UTC ---
Note that the www.cplusplus.com documentation has unordered_multiset wrong ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56957
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29886|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57065
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-25
10:01:40 UTC ---
Good catch, thanks, Kenny
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57049
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57065
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-25
09:16:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01464.html .
The patch doesn't work. With 4.9-20130421 + the patch I get:
/tmp/objdir/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57065
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57068
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57068
Kai Koehne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29934|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57068
Bug #: 57068
Summary: gcc prints warning "ref-qualifiers only available with
-std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x" for operator&
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57063
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-25
08:34:30 UTC ---
In general, testcases must be minimal, otherwise, eg, you start wondering (as I
did) whether the bug is in the code handling alias declarations.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
Bug #: 57067
Summary: Missing control flow edges for setjmp/longjmp
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57055
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56716
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-25
07:51:48 UTC ---
Ah, so the issue is related to the fact that %rdi/%rsi aren't call clobbered in
ms_abi, but are call clobbered in the sysv abi. The CALL_INSN pattern has
clobbers for rsi/rdi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #10 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-25
07:34:21 UTC ---
Great! That changes everything. Now I can provide a mutating arg() overload.
I'll just need some #ifdef and build magic to add the R, O overloads without
removing the over
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-25 07:28:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Is this second call supposed to be to R? If it's to O, it's exactly what I
> need
> to make the feature useful.
It is O.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57017
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57063
--- Comment #2 from Nikolka 2013-04-25 07:19:20 UTC ---
The alias is added for convenience - we can quickly test handling of different
types so. It seems that there is no problem with class types and function
types, the error arises when T is a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #8 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-25 07:13:44
UTC ---
Hmm... this might be an effect of the same bug. Can you try this on 4.9?
struct A {
A p() const &;
A &&p() &&;
};
void f()
{
A().p().p();
}
I get:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-25 07:08:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> void f(A &&a)
> {
> std::move(a).p();
> }
>
> _Z1fO1A:
> .cfi_startproc
> jmp _ZNR1A1pEv@PLT #
> .cfi_endproc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57066
Bug #: 57066
Summary: std::logb(-inf) returns wrong value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
74 matches
Mail list logo
