http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
--- Comment #29 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Feb 20 06:40:07 2014
New Revision: 207934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58555
* ipa-inline-transform.c (clone_inlined_nodes): Add f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60204
--- Comment #6 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Thu Feb 20 06:32:21 2014
New Revision: 207933
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207933&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/60204
* config/i386/i386.c (classify_argument): Pas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #27)
> s/typoes/typos
;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks, but please fix the typoes:
s/ulikely/unlikely/
s/appers/appears/
s/bookeeping/bookkeeping/
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59193
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60279
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60280
--- Comment #1 from bin.cheng ---
It's caused by patch at (revision r198333):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01530.html
After patching, forwarder basic block 6 in below dump didn't get removed:
tr4 (short int * array, int n)
{
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60280
Bug ID: 60280
Summary: gcc.target/arm/ivopts.c and gcc.target/arm/ivopts-2.c
failed caused by preserving loop structure.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60065
--- Comment #2 from Adam Butcher ---
Turns out the base template parameter index was not been initialized correctly
so it was trying to convert the 'int' parameter to a pack as well as the
invented template parameter generated for the 'auto'. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka ---
> It is easier to just return at beggining instead of duplicating the check.
> Have patch for it, just for some reason
> I wanted to look deper into why we inline here. I forgot the reason, but will
> work it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59193
Max TenEyck Woodbury changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60065
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
> estimate_calls_size_and_time is quite high on the profile - called via
> do_estimate_edge_size it walks callgraph edges O(n^2). It seems that
> the idea of having a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > So, shall we just apply #c15 here?
>
> Diff works fine for me for over five weeks now, so I say yes.
It is easier to just return at beggining instead of duplicating the check.
Have patch for it, just for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60279
Bug ID: 60279
Summary: Incorrect column number for -Wuninitialized in return
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #13 from Ian Hamilton ---
(In reply to Mark Warner from comment #11)
> I'm confused .. what about..
> for (k = i; k < (int)(sizeof(NSQ_del_dec_struct) / sizeof(opus_int32)); ++k)
> ... is illegal or invalid ?
> Why does it only fail if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60278
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
deque::erase() is fixed for 4.9, string will be fixed after 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60278
Bug ID: 60278
Summary: string::erase() (and other containers) does not take
const_iterators
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 19 23:32:46 2014
New Revision: 207927
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-19 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/49397
* expr.c (gf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60207
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60207
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Feb 19 22:45:34 2014
New Revision: 207926
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove TFmode check for X86_64_INTEGER_CLASS
Backport from mainl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60207
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Feb 19 22:43:19 2014
New Revision: 207925
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207925&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove TFmode check for X86_64_INTEGER_CLASS
Backport from mainl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57320
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This has been fixed by r204211 on the trunk, any reason to keep this PR open?
Eh, really? That commit is supposed to change nothing except
the graph dumper.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37743
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 19 22:27:40 2014
New Revision: 207924
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207924&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/37743
* c-common.c (c_common_nodes_and_builtins): When initial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53711
patrick at parcs dot ath.cx changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick at parcs dot ath.cx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
--- Comment #31 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 32175
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32175&action=edit
Testcase from jumpnbump
After backporting the patch to 4.8 there is still a package that fails with the
same er
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60277
--- Comment #1 from Nick Lewycky ---
Furthermore, if the testcase ended with:
f->Foo::func();
then the warning should be issued.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Mark Warner from comment #11)
> I'm confused .. what about..
> for (k = i; k < (int)(sizeof(NSQ_del_dec_struct) / sizeof(opus_int32)); ++k)
> ... is illegal or invalid ?
> Why does it only fail i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #11 from Mark Warner ---
I'm confused .. what about..
for (k = i; k < (int)(sizeof(NSQ_del_dec_struct) / sizeof(opus_int32)); ++k)
... is illegal or invalid ?
Why does it only fail if -DDEBUG is defined ?
I mean, this code worked fine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60273
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60273
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60046
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 19 19:59:09 2014
New Revision: 207922
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60046
* pt.c (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Don't instantiate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60046
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 19 19:59:07 2014
New Revision: 207921
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60046
* pt.c (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Don't instantiate
f->func();
}
Using trunk:
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20140219 (experimental)
g++ -c -Wall -Wextra t.cc
t.cc:2:23: warning: inline function 'virtual void Foo::func()' used but never
defined
inline virtual void func() = 0;
^
But Foo::func is never actually used.
Analysis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56563
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60276
Bug ID: 60276
Summary: -O3 autovectorizer breaks on a particular loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45833
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57896
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like r196890 made this latent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60046
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 19 19:03:19 2014
New Revision: 207917
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207917&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60046
* pt.c (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Don't instantiate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60267
--- Comment #12 from Sylwester Arabas ---
Thanks a lot! I'll try it as soon as it will get into Debian's gcc-snapshot
package.
Sylwester
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57896
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60267
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60272
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
> I can confirm this with:
>
> gcc version 4.8.3 20140219 (prerelease) [gcc-4_8-branch revision 207910]
> (GCC)
>
> ~/gcc-build-48/gcc/cc1 -m32 -march=x86-64 pr57896.c
This is the same problem, as confirmed by following d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37743
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60272
--- Comment #2 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> So, either we'd need to change this function, so that it sets oldval to
> NULL_RTX
> first, and passes ..., &oldval, mem, expected, ... and needs to al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60046
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56563
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 19 18:12:31 2014
New Revision: 207915
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/56563
* cp-objcp-common.c (cp_function_decl_explicit_p): Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60267
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 19 18:11:54 2014
New Revision: 207914
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207914&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60267
* pt.c (tsubst_expr): Handle ANNOTATE_EXPR.
* g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60207
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Feb 19 18:10:04 2014
New Revision: 207913
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove TFmode check for X86_64_INTEGER_CLASS
PR target/60207
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37743
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32173
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32173&action=edit
gcc49-pr37743.patch
Untested fix. The deprecation can hopefully be done separately.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57896
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #5)
> Adding option -m32 I get ICE in ix86_expand_prologue, at
> config/i386/i386.c:10559
I can confirm this with:
gcc version 4.8.3 20140219 (prerelease) [g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57896
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #6)
> As an aside, in gcc 4.8.1 source code, before line 6995 of gcc/expr.c I put
>
> printf("\nexpr.c:6995 value->code=%d NUM_RTX_CODE=%d\n",(int)
> value->code,NUM_R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37743
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Yes, we could do something like that (but I also think it's time to put
the targets without this type information on the deprecation list and warn
their maintainers that the target support
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59797
Bug 59797 depends on bug 59794, which changed state.
Bug 59794 Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] i386 backend fails to detect
MMX/SSE/AVX ABI changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
What|Removed |A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
--- Comment #18 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Feb 19 16:50:22 2014
New Revision: 207912
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-02-19 Uros Bizjak
PR ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60267
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 19 16:45:21 2014
New Revision: 207911
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207911&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60267
* c-pragma.c (init_pragma): Don't call cpp_register_def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We have -fsanitize=undefined which can catch some issues, though the array
bounds instrumentation (nor __builtin_object_size based instrumentation) has
not been added yet for GCC 4.9, will be hopefully there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #9 from Ian Hamilton ---
Yes, that's all proper and correct. The invalid C code induces undefined
behaviour. I don't think anyone is disputing that.
However, to be pragmatic for a moment, the experience of thousands of
developers out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57320
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60205
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 59797 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59797
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60251
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Not sure this is valid. Anyway, the ICE is due to the COMPONENT_REF being
wrapped in a NOP_EXPR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Feb 19 15:53:59 2014
New Revision: 207910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207910&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59794
* config/i386/i386.c (type_natural_mode): W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The latest patch posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-02/msg00109.html
works smoothly on the test case in comment 12.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56563
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard ---
Jakub proposed a patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01166.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60064
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60274
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #17 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Alex,
> if (reg != hard_frame_pointer_rtx && fixed_regs[REGNO (reg)])
> cselib_preserve_cfa_base_value (val, REGNO (reg));
This works for the RX port - thanks!
Cheers
Nick
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59799
--- Comment #9 from yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed Feb 19 15:32:54 2014
New Revision: 207908
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207908&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-19 Michael Hudson-Doyle
PR target/59799
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #16 from Sebastian Götte ---
Alexandre, curiously, applying this patch to the cross-compiler source tree
fixes the problem for me building 4.8.2 for rx-elf using a 4.8.2 x86_64 host
gcc. I did not even have to rebuild the host gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikulas at artax dot
karlin.mff.cu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54737
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
(int)(sizeof(NSQ_del_dec_struct) / sizeof(opus_int32) seems to be 1168/4 = 292,
but sLPC_Q14 has only 112 elements.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 19 14:25:47 2014
New Revision: 207899
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-19 Richard Biener
PR ipa/60243
* tree-inline.c (estim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60266
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
It's caused by mixing -O0 and -O2 with LTO:
markus@x4 ~S % cat TableCopyHelper.ii
namespace com {
namespace sun {
namespace star {}
}
}
namespace css = com::sun::star;
namespace com {
namespace sun {
na
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60275
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #6 from Mark Warner ---
If it is invalid, why does -Wall not trigger anything ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60275
Bug ID: 60275
Summary: [UBSAN] Add
-f[no-]sanitize-recover/-fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-e
rror to make UBSAN's runtime errors fatal
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60267
--- Comment #8 from Sylwester Arabas ---
BTW, I have initially reported it as a comment to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60198 (the same file/line in ICE
error message).
S.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60274
Bug ID: 60274
Summary: String as template parameter - regression in 4.8.2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60267
--- Comment #7 from Sylwester Arabas ---
Created attachment 32172
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32172&action=edit
preprocessed source trigerring ICE with g++ snapshot 20140212
Thanks a lot for looking at it.
I'm attaching th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60273
Bug ID: 60273
Summary: gcc gets confused when one class uses variadic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59933
--- Comment #5 from Mark Warner ---
sizeof(NSQ_del_dec_struct) / sizeof(opus_int32) is guaranteed to produced a
even number with a remainder of 0.
Note the __attribute__ ((__aligned__ (8))) to make it a multiple of 8 in size.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56563
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Antony, is it possible for you to try the patch in comment 2, in order to check
if it produces the expected runtime behavior for your code?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60232
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60232
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Feb 19 11:52:39 2014
New Revision: 207896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-19 Janus Weil
PR fortran/60232
* expr.c (gfc_g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #36 from Joey Ye ---
Please ignore previous comment as it shouldn't be here.
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
