http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55747
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55712
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-06 08:45:48 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Jan 6 08:45:43 2013
New Revision: 194937
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194937
Log:
Backport from mainline
2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55712
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|http:/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
Bug #: 55885
Summary: Modulo operator crashes for int and long variables if
they have minimal value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-06
11:31:03 UTC ---
OS wasn't the right term, but you need to update mingw32-w64 to a recent
version from trunk. That requirement is not suitable for a release branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
--- Comment #2 from kwieder at polytechnic dot edu.na 2013-01-06 12:14:16 UTC
---
Thanks for the quick response.
Why is
INT_MIN % -1
ok
and why is
int b = -1;
INT_MIN % b
not ok.
I"m well aware of IN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-06
12:26:13 UTC ---
Are you asking why undefined behaviour doesn't have consistent results?
http://c-faq.com/ansi/experiment.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54678
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2013-01-06
12:43:49 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jan 6 12:43:45 2013
New Revision: 194948
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194948
Log:
2013-01-06 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
--- Comment #4 from kwieder at polytechnic dot edu.na 2013-01-06 12:44:42 UTC
---
Hi Jonathan,
According to the the standard C++ implementation
(a % -b) <==> (a % b), therefore
(INT_MIN % -1) <==> (INT_MIN %1) == 0
Neither I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54678
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55845
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886
Bug #: 55886
Summary: gcc/configure.ac problems lead to GCC 4.7.2 not
building for x86_64-pc-mingw64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48615
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
Bug #: 55887
Summary: [OOP][F2008] ICE with CLASS and data-target pointer
association in (default) initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40737
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: rmansfi...@qnx.com
Using
gcc version 4.8.0 20130106 (experimental) [trunk revision 194948] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. -O2 ~/ice.i -m32 -c
/home/ryan/ice.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55888
--- Comment #1 from Ryan Mansfield 2013-01-06
15:17:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 29088
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29088
preprocessed src
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus 2013-01-06
15:33:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> To the last test case of comment 0:
I mentioned this example in the array-descriptor/subpointer PR 40737 to make
sure it is not forgotten.
(I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55594
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-06 15:42:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-06
> 15:10:01 UTC ---
> So, can we restrict the -Wa,-nH check to *-*-solaris*, or do also say -Wa,-V
> or whate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45836
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-06
15:50:23 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan 6 15:50:09 2013
New Revision: 194949
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194949
Log:
PR fortran/42769
PR fortran/458
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42769
--- Comment #36 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-06
15:50:19 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan 6 15:50:09 2013
New Revision: 194949
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194949
Log:
PR fortran/42769
PR fortran/45
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45900
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-06
15:50:24 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan 6 15:50:09 2013
New Revision: 194949
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194949
Log:
PR fortran/42769
PR fortran/458
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55845
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55888
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas 2013-01-06 18:48:07
UTC ---
Created attachment 29089
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29089
modified version of one of the failing tests
Confirmed
This is a failure of the scalarizer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55117
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2013-01-06
18:51:07 UTC ---
This bug appears to be unrelated to the other two namelist bugs. It is related
to not seeing the ending '/' marker. I have more testing to go before
submitting a patch. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
Bug #: 55889
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: in move_op_ascend, at
sel-sched.c:6153 with -fschedule-insns
-fselective-scheduling
Classification: Unclassified
Pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55594
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2013-01-06 20:23:40 UTC
---
Created attachment 29090
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29090
proposed patch
David, could you please try the attached patch?
I've tested it so far with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55890
Bug #: 55890
Summary: calling a builtin func through a cast triggers an ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-06
21:59:13 UTC ---
This patch works (not regression-tested yet), but the method
using the state variable seems hackish and error-prone.
What do you think?
Index: expr.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55872
--- Comment #3 from Yogesh Gaur 2013-01-07
00:12:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> GCC 4.4 is no longer maintained or supported.
>
> Unles you can reproduce the problem with a current release of GCC (which I
> can't) then nothing i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55728
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-07
00:50:25 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 7 00:50:16 2013
New Revision: 194958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194958
Log:
PR libstdc++/55847
* src/c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55847
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-07
00:50:23 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 7 00:50:16 2013
New Revision: 194958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194958
Log:
PR libstdc++/55847
* src/c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55728
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55847
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55891
Bug #: 55891
Summary: Problem with shared library and EQUIVALENCE on darwin
11.4.2 x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53900
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-07
04:25:38 UTC ---
> __attribute__((aligned(16))) float array[4];
Explicitly says the array is aligned to 16 bytes which means it is undefined by
the C/C++ standard what happens if you a pointe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55892
Bug #: 55892
Summary: Bogus compiler warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55893
Bug #: 55893
Summary: C++11: runtime segfault with static const object with
virtual destructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55893
--- Comment #1 from Frank Heckenbach 2013-01-07
07:21:01 UTC ---
Submitted to early. Here's the description:
The attached test case segfault at runtime:
% g++-4.7 -std=c++11 bug.cpp && ./a.out
Segmentation fault
As far as I can se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UN
47 matches
Mail list logo
