http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-25
08:12:02 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jan 25 08:11:56 2012
New Revision: 183511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183511
Log:
2012-01-25 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 08:39:23 UTC ---
tentative fix:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c (revision 183325)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-scc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
--- Comment #20 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-01-25 08:52:43 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jan 25 08:52:39 2012
New Revision: 183512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183512
Log:
2012-01-25 Ramana Radhakrishnan
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |*-apple-darwin*
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-25
09:14:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 25847 [details]
> more correct patch
>
> An updated patch which is more correct than the previous patch and it works
> correctly with ME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51968
--- Comment #9 from Eric Batut 2012-01-25
09:43:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Fixed.
Great, many thanks !
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26430|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-25
09:48:32 UTC ---
not a gcc bug, you're code is invalid - values of default arguments are not
part of the function type and do not take part in deduction
you can do it in C++11 with decltype
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
Bug #: 51991
Summary: Wrong error message with variables named "SAVE*"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Bug #: 51992
Summary: internal compiler error: tree code ‘target_expr’ is
not supported in LTO streams
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 10:15:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This extension is not even documented, see PR 37428 for more info.
>
There are at least these 3 examples in the testsuite that use this extensio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
Bug #: 51993
Summary: Erroneous type component initialization leads to
internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Bug #: 51994
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] git-1.7.8.3 miscompiled due to
negative bitpos from get_inner_reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://bugs.debian.org/6555
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Bug #: 51995
Summary: Polymorphic class fails at runtime
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41600
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #6 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-01-25
10:29:29 UTC ---
Also, new is_container with decltype, have value == 0 for any, non-void
type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51986
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51984
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Version|fortran-dev |4.7.0
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-25
10:46:23 UTC ---
Works for me:
With GCC 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 I get the expected diagnostic. For
4.7, I tried
4.7.0 20120118 [trunk revision 183273]
and
4.7.0 20120125 Rev. 183512 (with some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
10:59:09 UTC ---
I confirm that on x86_64-apple-darwin10 from
gcc version 4.6.0 20100723 (experimental) [trunk revision 162456] (GCC) up to
now,
gfortran gives the following errors for the test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-25
11:05:41 UTC ---
Using today's GCC 4.7 and using one one-week-old one, it compiles without any
error.
It seems as if the bug has been already fixed - or it only affects certain
architectures. Can you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-25
11:13:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Does the following code have undefined behavior?
>
> typedef struct { unsigned char b1, b2; } __attribute__((aligned(8))) S;
> void f( S const* s, unsign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-25
11:15:09 UTC ---
> Negative bitpos is fine - Ada uses that quite extensively and with MEM_REFs
> this just got more prominent. get_inner_reference is declared to return
> a _signed_ HOST_WIDE_INT bitp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #4 from Prince 2012-01-25 11:16:29 UTC
---
Thanks Dominiq.
I tested the program on i686 GNU/Linux running on Ubuntu-Maverick using gcc
version 4.7.0 20120118 (experimental) (GCC).
Using ifort 12, it gives the correct results.
So it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #6 from Prince 2012-01-25 11:20:58 UTC
---
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I tested the program on i686 GNU/Linux running on Ubuntu-Maverick using gcc
version 4.7.0 20120118 (experimental) (GCC).
Fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 11:21:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 26459
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26459
Patch to fix function prototypes
To my surprise, attached patch fixes all git failures. However, I hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 11:39:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > What should happen instead is that store_field needs to adjust the address
> > to properly point before the bitfield for calling store_bit_field. Or the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-25
11:56:50 UTC ---
My code was only meant to show a possible problem with invalid expressions
using void* not to solve your issue. GCC's bugzilla isn't a tutorial site and
"my code doesn't work" isn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
12:01:44 UTC ---
Actually, please scratch that. I was using wrong abilist command line.
With:
readelf -Ws $1 | sed -n '/\.symtab/,$d;/ UND
/d;/@GLIBC_PRIVATE/d;/\(GLOBAL\|WEAK\|UNIQUE\)/p' | awk '{ i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51996
Bug #: 51996
Summary: ICE in extract_insn gcc.dg/pr48335-5.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #8 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-01-25
12:29:22 UTC ---
I understand that. And thank you for giving me a hint and code for
is_container, it was more than I expected if it was non-bug. I've made the
comment only because I've thought tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51996
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
au/Softs/gcc-4.7.0-20120125/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-source/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking=release --disable-bootstrap
--disable-libmudflap --enable-libgomp --enable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-25
12:41:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 26459 [details]
> Patch to fix function prototypes
>
> To my surprise, attached patch fixes all git failures. However, I have no idea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-25
12:42:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > Negative bitpos is fine - Ada uses that quite extensively and with MEM_REFs
> > this just got more prominent. get_inner_reference is declared to return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-25
12:47:49 UTC ---
The problem seems to be the following:
One properly calls match_typebound_call, which sets "base" (alias "primary") to
the symtree of "db_connect" (which is of type BT_CLASS). Then it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-01-25 12:56:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> No, s.b2 should be 1.
Thank you for the answer. In that case, the optimisation in comment #0 can't be
done in a general case (unless I have overlooked som
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
12:59:39 UTC ---
> Well, ok, the 2 tests are just different and should raise different errors.
Your original test gives
pr51991.f90:11.11:
j = a%j
1
Error: 'j' at (1) is not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51997
Bug #: 51997
Summary: LTO does not inline available builtin implementations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
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=51997
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-25
13:18:56 UTC ---
The original discussion/motivation on this started here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01258.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 13:19:32
UTC ---
Testcase that crashes on alpha:
--cut here--
extern void abort (void);
char __attribute__((noinline))
test (int a)
{
char buf[] = "0123456789";
char *output = buf;
output += a;
GCC=gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/bardeau/Softs/gcc-4.7.0-20120125/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-source/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking=release --disable-bootstrap
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48374
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-01-25
13:20:47 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Wed Jan 25 13:20:43 2012
New Revision: 183519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183519
Log:
gcc:
PR rtl-optimization/48374
* se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #6 from Sebastien Bardeau 2012-01-25
13:29:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26461
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26461
Correct version this time.
Sorry, previous version had no problem. The symptom is the following:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
13:32:34 UTC ---
> ... I do observe the error reported in my first message with gfortran trunk
> ...
I am quite confused: in order to have 'savej' in the error message, you must
have it in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #9 from Prince 2012-01-25 13:32:50 UTC
---
Using five days old gcc version 4.7.0 20120120 (experimental) (GCC),
the problem still persists.
I think the problem has not been fixed for the i686 architecture.
Do you know of any work-ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 13:33:43
UTC ---
And the test in Comment #7 exposed the same problem in extract_bit_field & co.
#19 0x005801f4 in extract_bit_field (str_rtx=0x2e85b760,
bitsize=46912560805760, bitnum=469125
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #8 from Sebastien Bardeau 2012-01-25
13:36:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > ... I do observe the error reported in my first message with gfortran trunk
> > ...
>
> I am quite confused: in order to have 'savej' in the error me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
14:08:41 UTC ---
At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq and
somewhere rel semantics.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
14:10:07 UTC ---
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
Bug #: 51998
Summary: compiler hangs on self-recursive alias attribute
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26459|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
--- Comment #3 from Aliaksandr Valialkin 2012-01-25
14:38:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
> make_move_iterator, not so useful then.
This makes sense, but not so obvious for no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-25 14:41:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Testcase that crashes on alpha:
Actually, the test in comment #7 exposed the problem, but was not 100% correct.
This one is:
--cut here--
#include
extern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
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=51994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-25
15:02:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
> > make_move_iterator, not so useful then.
>
> This makes sense,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-25 15:14:29
UTC ---
> At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
> semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq
> and
> somewhere rel semant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51999
Bug #: 51999
Summary: gcc-4.7-20120114 v. AIX 6.1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
15:33:53 UTC ---
Well, that is a different testcase for a different bug, better would be not to
reuse this one for that.
Are you working on it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod 2012-01-25
15:36:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
> > semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51987
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
15:38:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 25 15:38:51 2012
New Revision: 183524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183524
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51987
* tree-data-ref.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-25
15:43:51 UTC ---
> All that has to be done is replace the two __sync_fetch_and_add(...) with
> __atomic_fetch_add(.., __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL) in atomicity.h isn't it?
In src/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/atom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2012-01-25 15:54:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Well, that is a different testcase for a different bug, better would be not
> to reuse this one for that.
Hmm, perhaps. Too late now.
> Are you working on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-25
16:12:49 UTC ---
> Untested fix. ...
I just finished to bootstrap revision 183518 with the patch. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
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=51987
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 16:33:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think fatal_error is undesirable, you should error on it somewhere and just
> drop the alias attribute.
Jakub,
like this? :
...
Index: cgraph.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #22 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-25
16:33:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 25 16:33:50 2012
New Revision: 183526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183526
Log:
PR target/51934
* g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-25
16:38:05 UTC ---
I think remove_attribute would be desirable too. But I wonder if it can't be
detected earlier than here. In any case, I'd like to hear Honza on this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51641
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-25
17:16:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 25 17:16:28 2012
New Revision: 183527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183527
Log:
PR c++/51992
* tree.c (find_decls_types_in_
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
