http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49031
--- Comment #3 from Elias Rudberg 2011-05-18
07:42:00 UTC ---
> There's no such thing, gcc is a compiler, libm is part of the C library
Okay, thanks for explaining this. I'm sorry I filed the bug in the wrong place.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-05-18
08:06:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 24277
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24277
Proposed patch
Patch that is less fuzzy in its attributes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49038
Summary: -ftree-vectorise introduces reads past end of array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49002
--- Comment #2 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-05-18
08:24:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 24278
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24278
The patch
Hi,
Here is fix for the bug. I made bootrstrap and make check on 4.6
BTW, it also have to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-18
08:34:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The libstdc++ uses glibc anyway? What about alternative implementations like
> hp-gcc for HP-UX?
I don't know what hp-gcc is, but on non-glibc platforms
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-05-18 08:47:31 UTC ---
On Tue, 17 May 2011, rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
>
> --- Comment #15 from rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz mf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49022
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
08:59:26 UTC ---
Discussion on the LWG reflector started at c++std-lib-30761
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #12 from __vic 2011-05-18 09:06:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I don't know what hp-gcc is, but on non-glibc platforms the overloads aren't
> correct, see PR 33935
>
PR 33935 is mostly about overloads in string.h. I'm not inte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49002
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011-05-18 09:12:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 24278 [details]
> The patch
> Here is fix for the bug. I made bootrstrap and make check on 4.6
> BTW, it also have to be committed to trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
Summary: LLVM StringRef miscompilation with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
09:22:45 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 18 09:22:41 2011
New Revision: 173849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173849
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49000
* tree-ssa.c (e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49033
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #1 from İsmail "cartman" Dönmez
2011-05-18 09:29:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 24279
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24279
Testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
09:26:14 UTC ---
If you don't use glibc 2.10+ as C library the answer is No indeed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-18
09:28:41 UTC ---
As stated at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33935#c4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
09:31:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 18 09:31:25 2011
New Revision: 173851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173851
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49000
* tree-ssa.c (e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49040
Summary: ICE in translate_clast, at
graphite-clast-to-gimple.c:1123
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49027
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
09:43:37 UTC ---
I'm not sure. What about
extern int f2();
struct NoExcept {};
template
void f1() {
try { f2(); } catch (...) { }
}
template<>
void f1() {
f2();
}
template f1();
? EH code co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49000
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
09:29:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 18 09:29:46 2011
New Revision: 173850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173850
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49000
* tree-ssa.c (e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49037
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |UNCONFIRMED
Version|4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49028
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #16 from __vic 2011-05-18 09:55:34 UTC ---
Initial problem is that the following standard-conforming code is not compiled
by GCC.
#include
template
void f(Iter i1, Iter i2)
{
}
int main()
{
const char *st = "abc";
f(st, std:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49037
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49038
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49041
Summary: ICE when compiling with lto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 10:20:59 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed May 18 10:20:55 2011
New Revision: 173853
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173853
Log:
2011-05-18 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49042
Summary: wrong "protected" in c++0x when using template and
decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
Summary|ICE in simplify_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #19 from __vic 2011-05-18 10:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33935
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
10:08:22 UTC ---
*** Bug 49020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48989
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
10:36:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 10:36:45 2011
New Revision: 173854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173854
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49037
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-18
10:31:46 UTC ---
The static data members aren't initialized before they're first used and I
don't see an easy way to fix it.
I agree with Paolo. At the very least we should mark it _GLIBCXX_DEPRECAT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-18
10:22:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> The following code would work anyway:
No, it would make this ambiguous:
#include
using namespace std;
int main()
{
strchr("foo", 'f');
}
(In re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49041
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
--- Comment #17 from Jing Yu 2011-05-18 11:06:35 UTC
---
I am on leave from 02/01/2011 to 05/30/2011. I may not reply your
email during this period.
If you have Android toolchain questions/issues/requests, please
contact Doug (dougk...@google.co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49042
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41881
--- Comment #10 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 11:27:56 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Wed May 18 11:27:51 2011
New Revision: 173856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173856
Log:
PR tree-optimization/41881
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49037
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
11:30:15 UTC ---
Jon, if you want to send to the mailing list the deprecation bits, just to make
sure we are all on the same page on this, it would be great. Really, I never
really liked this code, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41881
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #11 from I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
11:56:45 UTC ---
-O -ftree-vrp is broken, -O works. VRP1 performs quite some jump threading.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49028
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Wyderski 2011-05-18
12:02:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Maybe we can do some generic clever tricks to (A /[ex] CST1) % CST2?
> We'd like to re-associate it somehow.
Wouldn't it be possible to do add the followi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
Summary: Returns from lambda functions incorrectly detected as
"exits" from OpenMP loops in surrounding code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48703
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:29:28 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:29:24 2011
New Revision: 173860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173860
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:24:09 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:24:05 2011
New Revision: 173859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173859
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
Backp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:33:24 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:33:21 2011
New Revision: 173861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173861
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:29:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:29:24 2011
New Revision: 173860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173860
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48989
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:33:56 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:33:53 2011
New Revision: 173862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173862
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49044
Summary: [C++0x] mangling overload in decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49044
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
14:58:25 UTC ---
Normally, a "sorry" message means the issue is known...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
--- Comment #18 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-05-18
15:17:48 UTC ---
Yes, the original test case is fine now, but not the updated snippet I posted.
Maybe should I open a new bug ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
Summary: [C++0x] unexpected "different exception specifier"
error with noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
15:43:33 UTC ---
Apparently the second vrp pass incorrectly optimizes away the
if (Token.empty ()) continue;
test.
We have:
...
Split$Length_126 = MIN_EXPR ;
if (Split$Length_126 == 0)
goto ;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #20 from davidxl 2011-05-18 15:51:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> On Tue, 17 May 2011, rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
> >
> > --- Comment #15 from rakdver at kam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
16:04:51 UTC ---
BTW, on the trunk it isn't really fixed, but actually made even worse. Not
only is the _126 == 0 test optimized into false, but additionally the test
above call to abort is optimized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49046
Summary: code fragment with inline assembly seg faults gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
16:55:20 UTC ---
Shorter testcase:
/* PR tree-optimization/49039 */
extern void abort (void);
int cnt;
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
{
unsigned int mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49015
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
17:19:19 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 18 17:19:15 2011
New Revision: 173869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173869
Log:
PR c++/48948
PR c++/49015
* class.c (fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49047
Summary: DW_AT_linkage_name missing for constructors and
destructors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
17:19:19 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 18 17:19:15 2011
New Revision: 173869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173869
Log:
PR c++/48948
PR c++/49015
* class.c (fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
Summary: setprecision rounding fails in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49049
Summary: ICE in copyprop_hardreg_forward_1, at regcprop.c:767
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
17:40:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 24286
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24286
gcc46-pr49039.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49027
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-18
17:36:18 UTC ---
IIRC this was done on purpose but I cannot find the original discussion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49015
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49046
--- Comment #1 from Steve Richards 2011-05-18
17:40:54 UTC ---
I simplified this down to the following code that segment faults:
--- begin foo.c ---
int main(const int argc, const char* argv[])
{
asm ("adr r2, #0x10002101");
return 0;
}
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
Summary: ICE with deferred character length derived type
component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
18:03:17 UTC ---
Hmm, that's tricky. G++ is saying that the two exception-specifications are
different because the unqualified lookups for swap differ, because the latter
one also finds the middle dec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
18:12:46 UTC ---
Eh, interesting indeed.
By the way, can you imagine a possible workaround for implementing in the
library the swap overload for arrays while also declaring it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.1, 4.7.0
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
18:21:39 UTC ---
A workaround would be to use a forwarding function:
template
void
swap(_Tp&, _Tp&);
template
void __do_swap(T&& a,T&& b) { swap(a,b); }
template
void
swap(_Tp (&__a)[_Nm], _
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
18:24:31 UTC ---
Or, rather:
template
void
swap(_Tp&, _Tp&);
template void __swap_dummy(T&& a,T&& b)
noexcept(noexcept(swap(a,b)));
template
void
swap(_Tp (&__a)[_Nm], _Tp (&__b)[_Nm])
n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-18
18:31:39 UTC ---
For a variant (original, longer version), see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-05/msg00129.html
(That program compiles and runs w/o valgrind errors with ifort 11.1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 18:27:15 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed May 18 18:27:11 2011
New Revision: 173872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173872
Log:
2011-05-18 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48700
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 18:51:11 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed May 18 18:51:08 2011
New Revision: 173874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173874
Log:
2011-05-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
18:40:35 UTC ---
Ok guys. Thanks a lot for the suggestions, indeed should figured out both
myself, eh! ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48700
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 19:23:01 UTC ---
r173874 should fix the issue mentioned in comment #2, but the problem with
allocatable arrays in comment #5 is still present.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49051
Summary: Doesn't SFINAE away an invalid substitution into
toplevel parameter type "T[N]"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48946
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
--- Comment #2 from Cecilio 2011-05-18 20:23:23
UTC ---
printf output is 5798.12. I think this is the expected output. Does this
confirms your guess? (sorry, I don't understand your previous answer. My
knowledge about GCC is just the name "GCC".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49052
Summary: i386 version of gcc-4.5 fails to compile C or Fortran
files on CIFS mounts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
