http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
With C++11 constexpr things are fine. I think this is an indication that before
fiddling with dwarf2out we should make sure const is handled like constexpr, in
C++98 mode too, for this testcase, thus ca2 is "r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
Luis A Lozano changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #1 from Luis A Lozano
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge ---
Since gcc and clang can't both be right, I filed
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16828 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58083
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54366
Bug 54366 depends on bug 54864, which changed state.
Bug 54864 Summary: Decltype in nested class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58102
Bug ID: 58102
Summary: rejects valid initialization of constexpr object with
mutable member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #30 from Michael Meissner ---
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 07:22:32PM +, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
>
> --- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo ---
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #28)
> (In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27)
> > The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build.
> >
> > .../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function ‘void
> > r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27)
> The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build.
>
> .../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function ‘void
> rs6000_emit_swdiv(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, bool
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
Bug ID: 58101
Summary: Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56979
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
Rafał Miłecki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Rafał Miłecki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Proposed patch posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00361.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have just verified that the combined patches of comment 7 and 8 regtest
cleanly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
Rafał Miłecki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a failure
of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #8 from Rafał Miłecki ---
I found link to bug repository on https://support.linaro.org/home and reported
that issue to Linaro developers:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/1209171
Hope they'll handle this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46206
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Note: it's indeed debatable whether lowest or -infinity is better. For now I'm
going to minimally change our code to use lowest, because we use max the other
side, and infinities aren't unconditionally availab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #7 from Rafał Miłecki ---
I compiled two versions of gcc on my own:
1) gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2
2) gcc-linaro-4.6-2012.12.tar.bz2
For both of them I've used binutils-2.22.tar.bz2
test.o compiled with gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2
:
0: 240
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My first suspicion is that the regression was introduced by this commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=195133
which was the fix for PR54286.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58100
Bug ID: 58100
Summary: Spurious "DO loop at (1) will be executed zero times"
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Your code performs mis-aligned uint16_t stores, which x86 allows. The
vectorizer turns those into larger and still mis-aligned `movdqa' stores, which
x86 does not allow, hence the SEGV.
Replace the non-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #4 from Andrew McLeod ---
Hi Janus,
I think you should read the part of the standard I quoted again? It clearly
specifies that the procedure target may be pure even if the procedure pointer
is not (similar to the way that the interfac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Andrew McLeod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andy at gwentswordclub dot
co.uk
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Patch was posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00350.html
38 matches
Mail list logo