http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48723
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2011-05-03
07:20:06 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue May 3 07:20:01 2011
New Revision: 173288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173288
Log:
PR target/48723
* config/i386/i386.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48723
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48723
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou 2011-05-03
07:20:35 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue May 3 07:20:30 2011
New Revision: 173289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173289
Log:
PR target/48723
* config/i386/i386.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48850
Summary: Bogus overflow in constant expression warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
09:03:22 UTC ---
Good point. I think the requirement for constant complexity should have been
removed by LWG 675. Pending clarification from the committee I think I would
implement it with the usua
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48846
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
09:27:24 UTC ---
Agreed, thanks for the feedback, let's implement it like this, for now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
09:55:45 UTC ---
It would be possible to make it constant complexity, by delaying
destruction+deallocation of the old elements of *this until its destructor runs
(at which point "an implementation m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
10:11:48 UTC ---
I think I see what you mean, but actually, I'm not sure that this kind of
sophistication would be consistent with the rationale of LWG 675: if I
understand it correctly, we really wan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
10:25:12 UTC ---
I'm wondering if, waiting for some possible feedback from the Committee, we
shouldn't instead simply swap the data members and disregard LWG 675 for now.
Arguably, for std::valarray,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48846
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-03
10:21:48 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 3 10:21:44 2011
New Revision: 173299
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173299
Log:
2011-05-03 Richard Guenther
PR lto/488
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48846
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-03
10:18:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 3 10:18:29 2011
New Revision: 173298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173298
Log:
2011-05-03 Richard Guenther
PR lto/488
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48850
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-03 10:45:43 UTC ---
Remarks:
* This is clearly a bug; the diagnostics given are simply wrong.
* It's not a conformance bug, as C99 permits a limit on object size as
small as 64KiB (in a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
10:44:41 UTC ---
I'm also thinking that in terms of complexity, in this entire discussion we are
just shuffling work around in time. In LWG 675 it is established that clearing
first increases the comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48808
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
11:18:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I think I see what you mean, but actually, I'm not sure that this kind of
> sophistication would be consistent with the rationale of LWG 675: if I
It de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48832
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-03
11:15:30 UTC ---
On the 4.5 branch this is expected. On trunk I get as well
> ./xgcc -B. -S t.c -m32 -O2
> cat t.s
.file "t.c"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48845
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48849
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48787
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Invalid UP rounding with F |Invalid UP/DOWN rounding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48625
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Marlier
2011-05-03 12:06:13 UTC ---
The problem is that _ITM_beginTransaction shouldn't have caller save
optimization because if the transaction aborts, registers will get random
values. It should be ok for others ITM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
Summary: lto-plugin.c:224:7: error: missing sentinel in
function call [-Werror=format]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Summary: Invalid spaces in list-directed output of complex
constants
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48792
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42522
ami_stuff changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #15 from ami_stuff 2011-05-03 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
13:01:17 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 3 13:01:12 2011
New Revision: 173301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173301
Log:
PR target/48774
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
13:06:14 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 3 13:06:06 2011
New Revision: 173302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173302
Log:
PR target/48774
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Wrong DWARF codegen when Pmode !=
ptr_mode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
13:53:46 UTC ---
x32 is not a supported target. Do you have something that is reproduceable on
supported targets? ia64-hpux is the only one I think...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
--- Comment #2 from H.J.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #2 from Michael Richmond
2011-05-03 14:01:53 UTC ---
I believe it is a compiled compiler. Here are the two instructions that
immediately precede the error messages:
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC --tag=disable-static --mode=compile
/hom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
14:13:37 UTC ---
I'm under the impression that later today we can resolve this: Howard and
Daniel agree on the reflector that we want something similar to the clear() +
swap semantics we have in the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #18 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-03 14:20:49 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 3 14:20:45 2011
New Revision: 173309
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173309
Log:
2011-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48854
Summary: signal mask is not restored when exiting signal
handler via exception
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2011-05-03 15:02:26
UTC ---
Yes, I am seeing some new failures on IA64 HP-UX. I do not get the stackalign
failures but I do get:
FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/static-local-var-in-ctor.C scan-assembler
DW_OP_addr[^
\
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48854
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48796
--- Comment #2 from William Johnston 2011-05-03
15:37:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You appearantly ran out of memory and the kernel decided to kill cc1. This
> is likely not a GCC bug. How much memory do you have?
Oh, that's possible
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28501
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mark at codesourcery dot|jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48796
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
15:46:42 UTC ---
That's not a lot of memory.
You could use gzip to compress the file before attaching it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #19 from Seth Heeren 2011-05-03 15:47:28 UTC
---
Cheers!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-03
16:02:21 UTC ---
NULL seems to be just 0, ok for C++ maybe but broken for C. Thus this seems
to be a OpenBSD header issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
16:04:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 24170
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24170
gcc47-pr48853.patch
This patch should fix var2.c on ia64-hpux - the patch will for memory addresses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48855
Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO profiledbootstrap failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab 2011-05-03 16:20:35
UTC ---
0 is a valid null pointer constant in C. If you want to use NULL as a sentinel
you must always cast it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48742
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
16:34:37 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 3 16:34:32 2011
New Revision: 173326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173326
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-04-27 Jakub Je
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
Summary: Crash when compiling certain source code with C++0x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira 2011-05-03 16:31:38
UTC ---
Created attachment 24171
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24171
Preprocessed sources showing the error (gzipped)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48857
Summary: V2DI arguments are not passed like other vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48597
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
16:36:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 3 16:35:56 2011
New Revision: 173327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173327
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-04-28 Jakub J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48809
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
16:37:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 3 16:37:12 2011
New Revision: 173328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173328
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-04-30 Jakub Je
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48846
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
16:38:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 3 16:38:25 2011
New Revision: 173329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173329
Log:
PR target/48774
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-03
16:54:08 UTC ---
It would also be helpful to reduce the testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/minimize.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48832
marcus at jet dot franken.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48685
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-03
16:33:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 3 16:33:09 2011
New Revision: 173324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173324
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-04-23 Jakub J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48685
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48809
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5 Regression] switch |[4.4 Regression] switch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
--- Comment #4 from Thiago Macieira 2011-05-03 17:20:13
UTC ---
Sorry, I forgot the information.
Version: 4.6.0
System: Linux 2.6.38, 32-bit
Command-line: g++ -std=c++0x qxmlschema.ii
GCC was configured with:
./configure --build=i586-mandriva-li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48742
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #91 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-03
17:34:56 UTC ---
Hi,
with the patch I just posted for removal of hash tables for cgraph/varpool node
set, the situation with hashing is better. We got from 900s WPA stage to 500s
WPA stage.
Streaming s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
--- Comment #5 from Thiago Macieira 2011-05-03 17:21:09
UTC ---
To be exact on the version: gcc version 4.6.0 20110422 (prerelease) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
--- Comment #6 from Thiago Macieira 2011-05-03 17:42:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It would also be helpful to reduce the testcase:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/minimize.html
Thanks for the suggestion. I can't promise I will have the time t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28501
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-03
17:32:43 UTC ---
That patch looks fine to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48750
--- Comment #20 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-03 17:54:41 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 3 17:54:35 2011
New Revision: 173335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173335
Log:
2011-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28501
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-03 18:30:41 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 3 18:30:37 2011
New Revision: 173337
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173337
Log:
/cp
2011-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28501
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48808
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Mansfield 2011-05-03
19:20:35 UTC ---
The change that introduced the ICE is rev 172201.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=172201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48536
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48856
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48838
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-05-03 20:15:50 UTC ---
A candidate patch was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00219.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48855
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48536
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48211
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47723
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2011-02-14 08:16:1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47723
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-03
21:18:14 UTC ---
Actually, I think it's unclear. 318 had to do with elaborated type specifiers,
for which we explicitly say that the lookup is done "ignoring any non-type
names that have been declare
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #41 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-03
21:35:48 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 3 21:35:44 2011
New Revision: 173341
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173341
Log:
2011-05-03 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #42 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-03
21:44:30 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 3 21:44:27 2011
New Revision: 173342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173342
Log:
2011-05-03 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
--- Comment #1 from Bill Long 2011-05-03 21:51:29 UTC
---
As an aside, the code in the Description is a "work-around" to avoid using the
TR 29113 feature that allows Optional arguments. This would be the preferred
code in the future:
> cat ckne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
Summary: Incorrect error for same binding label on two generic
interface specifics
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #43 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-03
21:56:47 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 3 21:56:45 2011
New Revision: 173343
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173343
Log:
2011-05-03 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey 2011-05-03 22:15:38
UTC ---
The patch works for me on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. It fixed the four new failures I
had and caused no regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
--- Comment #19 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-03 22:25:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 3 22:25:24 2011
New Revision: 173344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173344
Log:
2011-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48848
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39055
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-03
22:52:57 UTC ---
Jason, sorry for bothering, did we eventually get feedback from the committee
about this issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38634
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38634
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-03
23:39:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
No, that's a regression in diagnostic quality.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
Summary: Regression: incorrect "uninitialized const member"
error on new without new-initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48859
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-04
00:03:08 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29043
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25811
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48792
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Mansfield 2011-05-04
00:22:54 UTC ---
The change that introduced this ICE is rev171520.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=171520
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
