http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
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=48031
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-03-10
09:22:04 UTC ---
If I revert this part of r139061 then things work again:
* gimplify.c (gimplify_conversion): Use maybe_fold_offset_to_address.
--- gcc/gimplify.c (revision 139060)
+++ g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 09:33:49 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, mikpe at it dot uu.se wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
>
> --- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-03-10
> 09:22:04 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-10
09:36:12 UTC ---
c's vnode is first varpool_mark_needed_node, then it is again marked as not
needed by cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes (so far both for -O0 and -O1+)
and as nothing like finish_aliases_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich
2011-03-10 09:36:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 23610
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23610
Patch to fix rounding issue
Proposing this patch (untested) for field width.
Trading 2 extra bytes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Henlich
2011-03-10 09:39:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 23611
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23611
Comprehensive test for IEEE 754-2008 clause 5.12.2 compliant output rounding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23611|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-10
10:18:52 UTC ---
This looks like a linker issue. I remember seeing similar errors when
using GNU ld and not gold.
And I don't think GCC produces intermediate files named ccc3QsSw.o.ironly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
Summary: lto throws out needed symbols when linking QtScript
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-10
10:22:48 UTC ---
Thanks for the analysis. I knew about the difference between signed and
unsigned, makes sense. Not knowing in detail the internals of the optimization
the puzzling bit is that types wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-03-10
10:23:21 UTC ---
I think you need to use the attribute used on cti_vm_throw when using LTO as
the symbol usage is hidden from the compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-03-10 10:54:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the fast reation.
I would like to point out that, at least on x86_64, the only one that does not
work is
"unsigned int"
"unsigned long long (aka size_t)" seems to wor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |testsuite
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48057
Summary: Assert_Failure sinfo.adb:1985 when = put instead of :=
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-10
11:14:41 UTC ---
Are there conflicting definitions somewhere? Then it would indeed be a
testsuite bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-10
11:30:58 UTC ---
Well, on x86, in terms of addressing unsigned int (aka long) *is* the widest
type, morally unsigned long long doesn't count.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43421
Mattias Engdegård changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
--- Comment #3 from bero at arklinux dot org 2011-03-10 11:48:47 UTC ---
Thanks, works.
Re-filed as WebKit bug
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46788
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47779
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
Summary: [4.6 Regression] reallocation of array during
constructor assignement
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2011-03-10 12:09:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Are there conflicting definitions somewhere? Then it would indeed be a
> testsuite bug.
No, these are the only definitions for the particular testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43421
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-10
12:34:04 UTC ---
The code emitting the warning was removed without replacement.
The code isn't dubious but it shows that GCC 4.4 has bugs (but as we warn
we also tell you at the same time we won't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-10
12:34:57 UTC ---
> It's mixing VLA unaware foldings into the mids of GIMPLE which is the
> root of the issue though. The issue is latent on trunk.
>
> Patch for the first (and safe) idea:
>
> Index:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 12:36:33 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
>
> --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-10
> 12:34:57
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-10
12:46:33 UTC ---
> No it isn't. But given that fold at this place doesn't even
> fill in the array-ref element-size slot but provides NULL_TREE
> it is probably a fix for the better anyway?
Why not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-03-10 12:51:19 UTC
---
> I wonder if cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes shouldn't be somehow alias pairs
> aware (can it e.g. call find_aliases_1 again?), or at least for !optimize
> shouldn't it avoid clearing v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #59 from Jan Hubicka 2011-03-10 12:53:58
UTC ---
> > How do you do this with "make -f client.mk profiledbuild"?
>
> To answer my own question:
> Just edit ./configure and ./js/src/configure and add
> "-flto=4 -fwhole-program" (or wha
> No, these are the only definitions for the particular testcase.
Hmm, in every case it is GNU ld bug - the GNU ld internal ironly section should
not be leaking
to user warnings. Please fill in GNU ld PR.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2011-03-10 12:56:56 UTC
---
> No, these are the only definitions for the particular testcase.
Hmm, in every case it is GNU ld bug - the GNU ld internal ironly section should
not be leaking
to user warnings. Please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 12:57:59 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
>
> --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-10
> 12:46:3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-10
13:04:17 UTC ---
> That would work, too. You see no problem with a NULL operand 3
> of array-refs? If you create an array with a variable lower bound,
> take its address, convert it to pointer to el
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 13:07:16 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
>
> --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-10
> 13:04:1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-10
13:10:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23614
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23614
patch
testing appreciated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47989
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-mrecip causes 482.sphinx3 |-mrecip causes 482.sphinx3,
«:
a.f90:14:0: interner Compiler-Fehler: in gfc_conv_component_ref, bei
fortran/trans-expr.c:523
Fortran version:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.6.0 20110310 (experimental)
I know that the length specification in a_string is a little bit creepy, but it
is valid. I had a discussion with the NAG about this before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47989
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-10
14:01:25 UTC ---
A similar problem occurs with the polyhedron test aermod.f90 (see pr34702).
> Feeding rcps sequences into call stmts is probably never a very good idea.
Probably the same thin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-03-10
14:03:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Created attachment 23614 [details]
> patch
>
> testing appreciated
Thanks, fixes the ICE in 4.5 and 4.4 crosses to m68k-linux. I'm starting
native 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48060
Summary: internal compiler error: in dfs_enumerate_from, at
cfganal.c:1209
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Werner Boschmann 2011-03-10 14:06:06 UTC ---
I have removed this character function from my project and found the same ICE
message with other, non character-valued functions of extended types. So it
seems to be a more gene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bur...@net-b.de, pault at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Marlier
2011-03-10 14:19:35 UTC ---
On 03/10/2011 12:01 AM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I suspect, but have not yet verified, that this is related to
>// Inhibit implicit instantiations for required instantiat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel 2011-03-10
14:27:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 23608 [details]
> gcc46-pr48043.patch
>
> Fix (tested just with cross on the pr47201.c testcase). Could you please
> bootstrap/regtest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
Kacper Kowalik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-10
14:37:39 UTC ---
If there isn't a mode mismatch in the instruction stream, then no.
The problem is that because of the delegitimizate address bug adjust_insn
in var-tracking (temporarily) changed the i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2011-03-10 14:39:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > No, these are the only definitions for the particular testcase.
> Hmm, in every case it is GNU ld bug - the GNU ld internal ironly section
> should
> not be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48061
Summary: Internal compiler error in spill_failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48061
Matthew Gretton-Dann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47198
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-10
15:21:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 10 15:21:00 2011
New Revision: 170847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170847
Log:
PR c++/47198
* parser.c (cp_parser_single_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48000
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y...@momonga-linux.org
--- Comment #9 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-03-10 16:07:34 UTC ---
In the Firefox case sqlite3.o gets compiled correctly,
it is libmozsqlite3.so that segfaults when compiled with -flto
and -fprofile-use :
gcc -Wall -W -Wno-unused -Wpointer-ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2011-03-10 16:26:01
UTC ---
> gcc -Wall -W -Wno-unused -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -W -pedantic
> -Wno-long-long -march=native -fpermissive -fno-strict-aliasing -pthread -pipe
> -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Wcoverage-mism
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
Summary: `shadowed declaration is here' should be a note
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #38 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-10 16:58:38 UTC ---
> While the latter is fixed, I think the _REENTRANT issue isn't. Or is it?
>
> If it it not fixed, I think we should have (a different) PR open to track that
> issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48061
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-03-10
17:00:10 UTC ---
Another test (from the dup).
int __attribute__ ((vector_size (32))) x;
void
foo (void)
{
x <<= x;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mgretton at sourceware dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47278
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-10
18:04:03 UTC ---
Reduced:
template
struct scoped_refptr {
operator T*() const;
};
class EventParameters { };
class HttpResponseHeaders;
struct NetLogHttpResponseParameter : public EventPar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-10
18:08:52 UTC ---
really reduced:
class Incomplete;
struct Ptr
{
operator Incomplete*();
};
int main()
{
Ptr p;
*p;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-10
18:10:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 10 18:10:14 2011
New Revision: 170851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170851
Log:
PR debug/48043
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_stmts failed: conversion
of register to a different size with
-fno-early-inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-03-10 18:39:21 UTC ---
Here's what I got:
(gdb) set follow-fork-mode child
(gdb) run -plugin /usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.0/liblto_plugin.so
-plugin-opt=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #118 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 18:50:12 UTC ---
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:59 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Hm, there doesn't seem to be a runtime testcase attached to this bug, so I
> can't produce numbe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-10
18:50:19 UTC ---
Again caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161655
setup_one_parameter has:
if (value
&& value != error_mark_node
&& !useless_type_conversion_p (TREE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-10
19:09:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 23617
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23617
gcc46-pr48063.patch
This seems to fix it, but no idea whether it is the right fix.
It seems all oth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-03-10 19:13:55 UTC ---
And the same with debugging symbols:
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
[Switching to process 5046]
0x0086d41c in cgraph_decide_recursive_inlining
(n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48064
Summary: Optimizer produces suboptimal code for e.g. x = x ^ (x
>> 1)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #119 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 19:55:54 UTC ---
It's nearly impossible to examine the assembly code responsible for the FFT in
the package I set up in the previous comment. If you want a runtime benchmark
for this P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48065
Summary: LTO: assertion failed in optimize_inline_calls, at
tree-inline.c:4246
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48065
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-03-10 20:00:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 23619
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23619
backtrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42976
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avr at gjlay dot de,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42976
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-03-10
21:20:52 UTC ---
Thank you for reducing this.
Here is what I understand from the reduced test case.
For the expression "*p" the compiler uses overload resolution to
determine which operator "*" to u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-10
21:30:34 UTC ---
It doesn't need to be a pointer to non-class type; a pointer to class is itself
a non-class type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #120 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 22:00:22 UTC ---
At
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/bugzilla/15/
I've put a tarfile and instructions that allow one to build Gambit-C in
a way that splits out the FFT code into its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-10
22:26:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> It doesn't need to be a pointer to non-class type; a pointer to class is
> itself
> a non-class type.
Indeed. And the example compiles fine if the type i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48029
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-10
22:37:27 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 10 22:37:22 2011
New Revision: 170853
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170853
Log:
PR c++/48029
* stor-layout.c (layout_type)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #9 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-03-10
22:53:42 UTC ---
Yes, I was confused. This code is valid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|dodji at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Segfault with SUM of
zero-sized array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson 2011-03-10
23:04:11 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Mar 10 23:04:05 2011
New Revision: 170854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170854
Log:
PR 47952
* trans-mem.c (ipa_tm_create_versio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37430
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
