http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58188
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58198
Bug ID: 58198
Summary: duplicate codes generated for variant function and
base function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58196
--- Comment #2 from Augusto Righetto ---
Hi Paolo,
I apologize for filling a bug for an unimplemented feature.
However, if you take a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html, you'll see that "Alignment
support" is marked as a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57865
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Summary:
tree-ssa-loop-im.c moves code, out of an if statement inside the loop
it it can not cause side effects or faults, but it does not care of integer
overflows. this seems to be an optimization!
BUT tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
For the record, I'm logging the following regression for cris-axis-elf in this
PR as well, because:
1: It's lto
2: The regression is observed introduced in the same interval locally:
(201466:201470]
3: Wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40109
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j...@red-bean.com
--- Comment #7 from Jak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36266
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58096
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux,|powerpc64-linux,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi, |arm-none-eabi,
|po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36266
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Cary?
_buf *buf = bar ();
__sigsetjmp (*buf, 1);
}
if (!varseen)
return 0;
return 1;
}
$ i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc --version
i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20130819 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58178
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Warn for unused (private) |Warn for unused internal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment 14 and 15 is fixed on 4.9 trunk with r200950 (cf. PR 52669).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58178
--- Comment #6 from chihin ko ---
On Linux:
pirandello 934> cat /etc/*release*
Enterprise Linux Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 (Carthage)
cat: /etc/lsb-release.d: Is a directory
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 (Tikanga)
/usr/bin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54578
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57798
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58178
--- Comment #5 from chihin ko ---
Oracle Solaris 10 8/11 s10x_u10wos_17b X86
DW_AT_producer "GNU C++ 4.8.1 -mtune=generic -march=pentium4 -g"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58197
Winfried Magerl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||winfried.mag...@t-online.de
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58197
Bug ID: 58197
Summary: subversion-1.8.x breaks script contrib/gcc_update
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53655
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58194
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58196
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58178
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
But we can't reproduce the issue on x86_64-linux. My grep gives:
00400742 W _ZN4baseC1Ev
00400742 W _ZN4baseC2Ev
are you on linux? Please provide information about your target, otherwise this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58196
Bug ID: 58196
Summary: std::align is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
Bug ID: 58195
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity when returning a
conditional
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58178
--- Comment #3 from chihin ko ---
a.out execution does not have problem, it is the debugging support would have
problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Benson from comment #4)
> "Btw, does it make sense to have a dummy procedure with 'BIND(C)' at all? I
> have the feeling that this might be something which should be forbidden in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58194
Bug ID: 58194
Summary: default argument for constructor outside of class DR
1344
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58192
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58192
Kenton Varda changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30672|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53655
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> b) For bar's "x" there is no warning as it is sym->attr.referenced, but I
> think one should warn that the "declared type" does not have an initializer.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Benson ---
"Btw, does it make sense to have a dummy procedure with 'BIND(C)' at all? I
have the feeling that this might be something which should be forbidden in
general ... (?)"
Possibly not... This was reduced fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58171
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
I see your point about it not being obvious what was intended in situations
like this. Something such as:
Error: There is no specific function for the generic 'cps' at (1)
would definitely be more helpful if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53655
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> a) For foo's "x" there is the warning:
> "Derived-type dummy argument 'x' at (1) was declared INTENT(OUT) but was not
> set and does not have a default i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53655
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> (I wonder whether we properly handle proc-ptr-valued functions as target in
> a proc-ptr assignment. Should check that ...)
Apparently this works, cf. PR 36704
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> There may be other ways to fix this, but a particularly simple one is just
> flipping the checks in the if statement which produces the ICE:
Note: The patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks everybody. Lower priority wrt regressions, I agree we could do even
better here, just bailing out for input iterators would be Ok with me too
(wouldn't be the first time we do that), but anything that s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58133
--- Comment #3 from Sven ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> This is a known issue.
So what needs to be done? Where do I find the source/configuration/whatever of
the code generator for thumb mode?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58100
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
In principle, we could also introduce a
!GCC$ NOWARN
directive, which could suppress all warnings on the following statement.
I'm not volunteering, though :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58133
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
--- Comment #6 from Danil Ilinykh ---
Thank you!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> Francois, did we change anything in the library for 4.8.x?
I think that Francois added more iterator concept checking and this one looks
correct. Unfortunately I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58193
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
First, this issue should be categorized as belonging to the component
"libstdc++", not to "c++".
Second, the defect report is invalid, because std::upper_bound requires a
minimum iterator category of "forwar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58171
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58193
Bug ID: 58193
Summary: init_priority attribute doesn't work on non-class
types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
59 matches
Mail list logo
