http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52687
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
Bug #: 52763
Summary: Warning if compare between enum and non-enum type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52762
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50708
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-29
08:27:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 29 08:27:04 2012
New Revision: 185951
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185951
Log:
2012-03-29 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32074
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52759
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52759
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
08:41:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27026
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27026
gcc48-pr52759.patch
Untested fix. The assert in mangle.c doesn't like mangling during
processing_te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52764
Bug #: 52764
Summary: Including after fails to define
limit macros
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
Bug #: 52765
Summary: -std=c++0x requires multilib for non-optimized
libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52766
Bug #: 52766
Summary: unambiguous member lookup rejected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #1 from christophe.lyon at st dot com 2012-03-29 09:19:30 UTC ---
If you look at libstdc++-v3/include/std/complex:
[...]
#ifdef __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
// _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS
// DR 387. std::complex over-encapsul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50708
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32074
--- Comment #7 from Siarhei Siamashka
2012-03-29 09:31:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Fixed by means of __builtin_unreachable ().
But __builtin_unreachable() is not a part of C standard yet? Is there no way to
extract some useful informat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
09:33:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 27028
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27028
gcc48-pr52760.patch
Untested fix. Using VCE here is undesriable, on big-endian it turns the shift
c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52756
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47769
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-29 09:55:46
UTC ---
ping.
Are you still waiting for more input from me?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52756
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-29
09:56:12 UTC ---
Reduced testcase, but a different ICE than the original one.
void Env_FetchObj0AttrOffset (unsigned int NumFields, int *Status)
{
int Found = 0;
if (NumFields)
while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52764
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52764
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-29
10:08:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I am not sure this is really a bug (is building libstdc++ at -O0 supported?),
Yes, the --enable-libstdcxx-debug configure option builds an alternative
lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32074
--- Comment #8 from Siarhei Siamashka
2012-03-29 10:11:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > We have __builtin_unreachable() now which should allow for this
> > optimization.
>
> I've been using __builtin_unreachabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45414
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-29 10:17:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 27029
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27029
proposed patch
If you accept this patch, please only apply to trunk.
I hate API changes in patch re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-29
10:17:49 UTC ---
I guess that first of all we want to fix this to warn at line #1 instead of #2:
void* fun(void* a = 0);
void* f2 = fun();
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-29 10:24:19
UTC ---
I just tested the patch on the last 4.7 snapshot (20120324). My unit test
apparently runs without failure, but I still get incorrect warnings "warning:
array subscript is above array
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52764
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-29
10:25:22 UTC ---
Joseph, I was just about to file a glibc bug, let me know if you want that
done.
Glibc's stdint.h (and GCC's stdint-gcc.h) must unconditionally define the
macros for C++11.
It's de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52766
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-29
10:28:55 UTC ---
The example was wrong and is not in C++11
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#381
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-29
10:34:54 UTC ---
Hmm, but that means the shift count should be promoted/demoted at another
place, not here. Because this place is not supposed to handle
promotion/demotion
but conversion of tcc_con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
10:39:24 UTC ---
But where else? The op is copied from the stmts (where it is certainly ok as
is) just a few lines above this.
Note, using VCE if the types have different sizes is invalid anyway.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
Tim Parker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ptim034 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #32 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52766
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481
Tim Parker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ptim034 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-29 10:50:49 UTC ---
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
> 10:39:24 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #10 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-03-29
11:04:27 UTC ---
Is it possible to look at the regressed test-case and gcc dumps with
-fdump-tree-ivopts-details option w/o that change?
Thanks in advance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554
--- Comment #6 from Lukas Mai 2012-03-29 11:26:12 UTC
---
>From the gcc documentation:
| However, dollar signs in identifiers are not supported on a few target
| machines, typically because the target assembler does not allow them.
That's nice,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27028|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
--- Comment #3 from Holger Hopp 2012-03-29
11:50:25 UTC ---
I agree that it is possible to define operator= for each struct that
is using t1 (in the original code (C code, but compiled as C++ code)
there is not only t2, and in all of them there a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52767
Bug #: 52767
Summary: Default inits for structs in struct initializer lists:
wrong "this" pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNC
Hi all,
I am getting the similar error while building the GCC tool chain.
I am unable to get what the line "This appears fixed by r110130." mean?
How to get where the fix for the above bug is?
Any help in this regard will be appreciated.
Best Regards,
Prashant S. Purohit.
Bugzilla from gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #3 from christophe.lyon at st dot com 2012-03-29 12:08:43 UTC ---
Not sure how/if it matters: I am looking at a cross gcc for arm-none-eabi,
built with --disable-shared.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52768
Bug #: 52768
Summary: Unable to get pointer to template function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52769
Bug #: 52769
Summary: Unspecified designated initializer might not set to
zero in some cases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52756
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-29
12:46:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 27030 [details]
> gcc48-pr52760.patch
>
> So do you prefer this instead?
Yes. In a non-constant case we'd miss a conversion, so I su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52770
Bug #: 52770
Summary: RFE: Letting compiler know asm block can call function
that can throw
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
12:54:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Created attachment 27030 [details]
> > gcc48-pr52760.patch
> >
> > So do you prefer this instead?
>
> Yes. In a non-constant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52768
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-29
13:02:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The code to explain the problem is:
No it isn't, it's missing several include files. I know it's "obvious" which
ones they are, but if five different peo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52768
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-29
13:13:19 UTC ---
linker script, I meant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
--- Comment #9 from Mario Baumann 2012-03-29
13:16:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 27032
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27032
fortran90 source file
report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
> gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/app2/gcc/4.8.0-20120329-svn185950/i686/bin/gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/app2/gcc/4.8.0-20120329-svn185950/i686/libexec/gcc/i686-unknown-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-29 13:19:33 UTC ---
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
> 12:54:31 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52746
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-03-29
13:20:24 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 29 13:20:18 2012
New Revision: 185961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185961
Log:
PR c++/52746
* typeck.c (lookup_destructor)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52746
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52771
Bug #: 52771
Summary: name found in contexts not referring to the same
entity should not compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-29
13:23:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 27033
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27033
Very lightly tested so far
Appears to work as expected. Maybe submitter can test it in his config: j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52768
--- Comment #3 from kmakaron11 at gmail dot com 2012-03-29 13:25:11 UTC ---
I am sorry, Jonathan Wakely. This is my first GCC bug report.
Next time I will, try to put the fallout to minimum.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52768
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-29
13:30:28 UTC ---
Even more reason to read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ first then :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-03-20 00:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554
--- Comment #7 from openhardware 2012-03-29
13:40:14 UTC ---
"Alternatively, change the documentation to the effect that invalid assembly
code and valid (but semantically wrong) assembly code aren't necessarily
compiler bugs."
Its a "windows-app
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52743
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52582
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52743
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-03-29
14:14:07 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 29 14:14:00 2012
New Revision: 185963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185963
Log:
PR c++/52743
* call.c (compare_ics): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52607
--- Comment #24 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-29
14:19:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #18)
>
> + if (!d->testing_p)
> +dsecond.target = gen_reg_rtx (dsecond.vmode);
> + dfirst.op1 = dsecond.target;
>
> This bit has
47.el6_2.9.x86_64
> g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/app2/gcc/4.8.0-20120329-svn185950/i686/libexec/gcc/i686-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/lto-wrapper
Target: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./configure --prefix=/app2/gcc/4.8.0-20120329-svn185950/i686
--enable-languag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48189
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52743
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-03-29
14:45:17 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 29 14:45:09 2012
New Revision: 185964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185964
Log:
PR c++/52743
* call.c (compare_ics): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52743
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52773
Bug #: 52773
Summary: internal error: in replace_pseudos_in, at
reload1.c:577
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
14:56:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 29 14:55:53 2012
New Revision: 185965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185965
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52760
* tree-vect-slp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52759
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
15:02:44 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 29 15:02:38 2012
New Revision: 185966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185966
Log:
PR c++/52759
* decl.c (start_decl): Don't c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52685
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52759
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-29
15:05:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 29 15:05:42 2012
New Revision: 185967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185967
Log:
PR c++/52759
* decl.c (start_decl): Don't c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52759
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #7 from christophe.lyon at st dot com 2012-03-29 15:45:42 UTC ---
It doesn't work in my context:
- symbol versioning does not apply to static libraries (as already said, I'm
using --disable-shared)
- the problem is not that the library
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-29
15:52:52 UTC ---
For sure, anyway, at -O0 the library *is* exporting unwanted symbols. I'm not
sure that at this time we can really support what you want.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52770
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52685
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-03-29
15:55:47 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 29 15:55:42 2012
New Revision: 185969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185969
Log:
PR c++/52685
* tree.c (copy_binfo): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52685
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-03-29
15:55:07 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 29 15:55:01 2012
New Revision: 185968
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185968
Log:
PR c++/52685
* tree.c (copy_binfo): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52685
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52774
Bug #: 52774
Summary: A check is needed to prevent deallocation in
realloc-lhs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52775
Bug #: 52775
Summary: Change default for using FCFID instruction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-03-29
16:18:34 UTC ---
Since "The names in the default argument are bound, and the semantic
constraints are checked, at the point where the default argument appears" I
think it makes sense to give this warni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd at verizon dot net
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson 2012-03-29
16:41:57 UTC ---
... and indeed, testing on i686 with BOOT_CFLAGS='-Os -g' causes
at least one of these asserts to fire. More work needed...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-29
17:06:15 UTC ---
I see, thanks. Like we just error out at line #1 for:
void* fun(void* a = 1);
void* f2 = fun(nullptr);
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
