"libstdc++-v3/include/ext/codecvt_specializations.h" uses iconv_t and causes
errors while building an i686-pc-linux-gnu to i686-pc-mingw32 cross-compiler.
(I'm at trunk revision 115196.)
Strangely however, this does not cause a build failure and is therefore not
catastrophic for this target.
GCC
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 07:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11823)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11823&action=view)
The portion of the build log that shows the error reported in this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #4 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-05 08:19 ---
ohhh, now I see what's wrong.
Out of Memory: Killed process 18248 (cc1).
the PPC970FX box has 1GB ram + 1GB swap.
i'll re-run build and try to reproduce this memory-hog.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Comment #2 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-07-05 08:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=11824)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11824&action=view)
Patch to implement pow(x,1.0/3.0) = cbrt(x) optimization
I have the patch that implements the optimization ready, just
--
uros at kss-loka dot si changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |uros at kss-loka dot si
|dot org |
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:04
---
As far as I can tell this has been fixed now so closing as such. Yes I did
test to make sure the function calls are no longer being duplicated.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|R
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:05
---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #67 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:06
---
Does anyone have new numbers for this, Richard G.'s recent memory patches have
an effect on the compile time also I noticed between 7% and 10% on at least
CSiBE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #30 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:14
---
Can you do timings on these again on the mainline since it looks like Richard
G.'s memory patches also improved compile time for C at least on the CSiBE
benchmark.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--- Comment #7 from tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
2006-07-05 09:23 ---
> The patch did not apply to 4.1, so I will have to submit a back port.
Thanks, Paul. I think this is the most serious bug in gfortran 4.1.x as it
silently produces wrong results.
--
tobias dot
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:27 ---
It is slightly different now:
leal-4(%edi), %eax
movl%eax, %edi
movl(%eax), %eax
testl %eax, %eax
But still the same issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #12 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:45
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> mingw has an implementation of _IO_ldtoa() and _IO_ldtostr(), based on Stephen
> Moshier's ioldoubl package, that could be used. Currently, the ldtoa function
> is not exposed, but the
--- Comment #3 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-07-05
09:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=11825)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11825&action=view)
Fix for PR28237 and the last bit of PR2320.
I have not had time to do a full regtest; just gfortran
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:50
---
struct FF {
__m128 d;
.
}
Mine I have a patch for this I cannot believe I found this before. The patch
has been tested a bit at least in the local tree I have been playing out with.
SRA should use element b
--- Comment #4 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-07-05 10:10 ---
This still fails with current mainline gcc.
--
uros at kss-loka dot si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Las
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-07-05 10:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28162
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-07/msg00133.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #4 from dtemirbulatov at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 10:46 ---
>fix
>
>we need to check first operand for FIELD_DECL before gimpilfying COMPONENT_REF
this is a wrong fix, it caused some regressions
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26696
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-07-05 10:50 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28158
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-07/msg00134.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 10:54
---
Subject: Bug 27084
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 5 10:54:17 2006
New Revision: 115200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115200
Log:
2006-07-05 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 10:58
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 11:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #14 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 11:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=11826)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11826&action=view)
split current functionality of Wconversion in two different options
This patch divides the functionality of Wcon
--- Comment #15 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 11:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=11827)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11827&action=view)
Adds a new function which detects when a real value can be exactly represented
as an integer.
Patch 2of3 http://
--- Comment #16 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 11:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=11828)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11828&action=view)
detect implicit conversions where a value may change
patch 3of3 http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Wcoercion#Background
De
--- Comment #8 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 11:34 ---
I think we may close this bug report since either:
* The solution is to split the functionality of Wconversion as conceived by the
Wcoercion project http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Wcoercion#Background. In that case,
this is
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 11:37 ---
See comment #1, this is how it is intended.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 11:43
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Can we close this?
I think we can. If someone has precise input on how we can make -fbounds-check
even faster, please reopen this PR with extra details.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 11:50
---
I have a patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-07/msg00137.html
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 4.0.0:
struct A
{
int i;
A(int = X);
};
void foo()
{
A().i;
}
bug.cc:4: error: 'X' was not declared in this scope
bug.cc: In function 'void foo()':
bug.cc:9: internal compiler error: in g
The following invalid code snippet triggers a segfault since GCC 4.0.0:
struct A
{
void* operator new(__SIZE_TYPE__, int = X);
void operator delete(void*, int);
A();
};
void foo()
{
new A;
}
The following valid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline:
int __attribute__((vector_size(8))) a;
void foo()
{
a += a*a;
}
bug.c: In function 'foo':
bug.c:5: internal
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline:
template struct A;
struct __attribute__((unused)) A<0<;
bug.cc:3: error: template argument 1 is invalid
bug.cc
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 3.1:
void foo(long double d)
{
asm("" :: "a" (d));
}
bug.c: In function 'foo':
bug.c:3: error: impossible regist
The specialization of a function is not called if compile with -03 option,
the generic implementation is called insteed.
This appear only if the declaration of the specialization is in another
file.
The specialization is called if compiled with -02 or lees optimization, or
if the generic implementa
--- Comment #1 from maxime dot fiandino at imag dot fr 2006-07-05 13:11
---
Created an attachment (id=11829)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11829&action=view)
The main, just call the template function foo and return the return value
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #2 from maxime dot fiandino at imag dot fr 2006-07-05 13:12
---
Created an attachment (id=11830)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11830&action=view)
the specialization
The specialization on int return true
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Comment #3 from maxime dot fiandino at imag dot fr 2006-07-05 13:12
---
Created an attachment (id=11831)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11831&action=view)
The header with the generic implementation
The generic template function return false
--
http://gcc.g
--- Comment #4 from maxime dot fiandino at imag dot fr 2006-07-05 13:14
---
Created an attachment (id=11832)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11832&action=view)
The makefile to test
This makefile create two executable
TC1 compiled with -02 which work well
TC2 compil
--- Comment #5 from maxime dot fiandino at imag dot fr 2006-07-05 13:18
---
This bug was firstly discover under gcc3.2.3, then we test with 4.1.1 with the
same results. The test case is very short.
--
maxime dot fiandino at imag dot fr changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 13:36 ---
With checking enabled we have
obj2/gcc> ./cc1plus -quiet -O2 t.ii
t.ii: In static member function 'static IntType
boost::random::const_mod::mult_schrage(IntType, IntType) [with
IntType = int, IntType m = 2147483647]
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from s_j_newbury at yahoo dot co dot uk 2006-07-05 13:38
---
This bug is still present with binutils-2.17.50.0.2. I am still uncertain
whether gcc is producing invalid code or the check in binutils is wrong. I
have found this bug to be triggered while compiling gcc and
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 13:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=11833)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11833&action=view)
dump diff for mainline r115174 bootstrap failure
The diff with -fdump-noaddr is indeed much more useful to trac
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 13:48 ---
I can reproduce it on the 4.1 branch on i686, but not on trunk. Very slowly
eating all of memory. Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28187
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 14:04 ---
You need to make the specialization visible at the point of instantiation.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 14:23 ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x080f8a12 in type_dependent_expression_p (expression=0x0)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/cp/pt.c:12518
12518 if (TREE_CODE (expression) ==
--- Comment #7 from maxime dot fiandino at imag dot fr 2006-07-05 14:33
---
Thanks, for you quick answer Richard.
Where i don't understand is, it is working well if i declare
the generic template function with:
template bool foo(T val) __attribute__(noinline)
{
return false;
}
Just i
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28266
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28267
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:06 ---
Reduced testcase, -O -ftree-vrp -fwrapv
extern int foo(const char *);
extern int verbose;
struct newsgroup {
char* name;
};
extern struct newsgroup** stufftoget;
extern char *l;
void checkgroups(int last)
{
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:09
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Andrew, what is the status on that bug? Do you still observe mismatch in the
> testsuite, or can we close the PR?
ping
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25270
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:12 ---
Visiting statement:
window_6 = ASSERT_EXPR ;
)
(res = scev_not_known))
Found new range for window_6: [-INF, last_7 + -1]
Simulating statement (from ssa_edges): last_50 = ASSERT_EXPR ;
Visiting statement:
l
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:20 ---
Slightly more reduced (for 4.1.2 on i686, trunk doesn't fail here):
extern void bar(int);
void checkgroups(int last, int verbose)
{
int window = 0;
int outstanding = 0;
while (window < last || outstandin
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:22
---
Subject: Bug 20892
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Jul 5 15:22:26 2006
New Revision: 115201
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115201
Log:
PR fortran/20892
* interface.c (gfc_matc
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.1.2
Known to work||4.2.0
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:25 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28270
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28269
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #5 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-05 15:45 ---
ok, my fault.(In reply to comment #4)
> ohhh, now I see what's wrong.
>
> Out of Memory: Killed process 18248 (cc1).
>
> the PPC970FX box has 1GB ram + 1GB swap.
> i'll re-run build and try to reproduce this memory-hog.
bo
(gdb) set args -fpreprocessed libgcc2.i -msecure-plt -quiet -dumpbase
libgcc2.c -auxbase-strip libgcc/./_mulvsi3.o -ggdb -O2 -O2 -O2 -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-version -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fsigned-char -fPIC -fvisibility=hidde
--- Comment #6 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-05 15:48 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> with -O2 ./cc1 ICEs.
for more details see PR28272
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28264
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:49 ---
Subject: Bug 28162
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 5 15:49:12 2006
New Revision: 115202
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115202
Log:
2006-07-05 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:49 ---
Fixed. Modulo the problem being latent on 4.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-05 15:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=11834)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11834&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28272
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 15:57 ---
When you file a bug about bootstrap failure, can you the following information:
How you configured?
How did you invoke make?
What environment variable were set that could affect the options like CFLAGS?
--
http:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 16:04 ---
The ICE was exposed by:
2006-05-27 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR middle-end/27773
* fold-const.c (fold_plusminus_mult_expr): Use fold_convert
to produce a constant of value 1 of g
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 16:09 ---
VRP relies on pointer equivalence in update_value_range, but we get
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr (var)
windowD.1282_5
(gdb) print *old_vr
$11 = {type = VR_RANGE, min = 0xb7ce93c0, max = 0xb7cf0678, equiv = 0x88c69a
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 16:25 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 16:25 ---
Fixed.
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 16:25 ---
Subject: Bug 28158
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 5 16:24:57 2006
New Revision: 115203
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=
gcc 4.1.1 fails to make with the following configure command:
from inside a custom directory avrobj created in gcc-4.1.1:
../configure --target=avr --prefix=/usr/local/avr --enable-languages=c
--with-elf --with-dwarf2 --with-stabs --disable-libssp --disable-nls
message from make failure is:
../..
--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-05 17:06 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> When you file a bug about bootstrap failure, can you the following
> information:
> How you configured?
Reading specs from ./specs
Target: ppc-pld-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr
--- Comment #3 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:19 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Bernhard,
>
> Your patch only addresses one aspect of the problem.
> Consider
>
> function _foo
> entry _bar
> end function
>
Is it sufficient to print an error in gfc_match_name, or s
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:31 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26504 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:31 ---
*** Bug 28273 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-07-05 17:35 ---
Subject: Re: subroutine _foo draws "unclassifiable statement" instead of a
useful error.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 05:19:44PM -, aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 fr
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20826
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21507
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:44
---
Java bugs are not release-critical. If, however, this is coming from CNI code,
then please move this back to P3, and I will re-review. It would be nice to
have a description of what's wrong with the debug output.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23305
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26658
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26968
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27827
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:56
---
Not release-critical until we have evidence that this is not Fortran-specific.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:56
---
Ada/OSF not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:57
---
Ada is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:59
---
We should understand if there was an intentional ABI change.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 17:59
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Not release-critical until we have evidence that this is not Fortran-specific.
Mark,
Did you miss comment #6 which shows the bug in C code?
Yes there were a lot of comments thinking it
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 18:00
---
68K is not release-critical.
However, Paul, would you please look into this, as Andreas believes this to be
caused by your change?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28003
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 18:03 ---
Removing the 4.2 regression tag, since apparently it's fixed there. I'm not
sure how this qualifies as a regression at all, since the bug was reported
against 3.4 and there's no report of it working better with a pre
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 18:19 ---
added known to work in 3.3.6
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known
--- Comment #5 from dtemirbulatov at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 18:26 ---
> It should instead issue the warning "statement is a reference, not call, to
> function A::f"
gcc producing the warnig, if you using -Wall flag
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26696
bash-2.05b$ cat defarg.C
int f (int i, int j = 0);
int f (int i = 0, int j);
bash-2.05b$ ./cc1plus defarg.C -quiet
defarg.C:2: error: default argument missing for parameter 2 of int f(int,
int)
defarg.C:2: error: default argument given for parameter 2 of int f(int, int)
defarg.C:1: error: afte
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 18:29 ---
Perhaps it doesn't ICE on the 4.1 branch only because release branches don't
have checking enabled?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27397
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 18:41 ---
3.4.0 did not ICE with checking disabled.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26938
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 18:49 ---
Subject: Bug 26146
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 5 18:49:48 2006
New Revision: 115206
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115206
Log:
2006-07-05 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/26146
--- Comment #7 from apl at alum dot mit dot edu 2006-07-05 18:50 ---
I think that this fix may have been too aggressive. I have a templated class
with a member function that does a dynamic_cast<>. With 4.2, I'm getting
errors when
I compile this template, despite the fact that I don't
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 18:54 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
