https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #9 from Martin von Gagern ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I rather not have builtins as you can write portable C code that detects
> overflow just fine. GCC could have internal functions if needed which are
> used w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #21 from Martin von Gagern ---
(In reply to myself from comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > […] built-in operations where you can just say "multiply two
> > (signed) values, check whether the result fits in 31-bit unsigned an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49467
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
--- Comment #4 from Martin von Gagern ---
Thanks for the quick reply.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> It is totally unsupported (and unlikely to work) to mix C++11 code built
> with GCC 4.x and 4.y, for any x!=y
Any particular r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
--- Comment #1 from Martin von Gagern ---
I just read https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01553.html indicating
that this is likely a deliberate ABI breakage for an experimental API. If that
is your official position, feel free to close
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net
Between 4.8.0 and 4.8.1, SVN commit 199331 changed the implementation of
compatibility-chrono.cc. Up to that point, it basically included chrono.cc
which provided implementations for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56537
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56537
Bug #: 56537
Summary: [C++11] lambda expression treats members as const
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51707
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #19 from Martin von Gagern
2013-02-02 22:08:09 UTC ---
Bug 49467 asked about builtins, and got duped here, so small wonder people
wanting a builtin-colored bikeshed like I do end up here...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #17 from Martin von Gagern
2013-02-02 18:54:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I somewhat disagree. A program must be correct; it should be secure;
> and it can be efficient. I'm interested in "correct" and "secure".
> If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54002
--- Comment #3 from Martin von Gagern
2012-07-18 07:09:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> See PR 52366, which makes this a dup of PR 52315
I agree that this is a duplicate of PR 52366. And although I'm still not
convinced that this is really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54002
Bug #: 54002
Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] Initializing constexpr static
member using constexpr static method fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49340
Summary: read_couts_file() not called for
-fbranch-probabilities
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49036
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot
19 matches
Mail list logo
