http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56166
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2013-02-01
08:41:59 UTC ---
4.9, yes. Of course wrt the C++11 requirements the current implementation is
non conforming for many other reasons (reference counting is out ruled) + there
are long standing bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-02-01 08:48:32 UTC ---
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
>
> --- Comment #24 from Steven Bosscher 2013-01-3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48418
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56169
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386-portbld-freebsd8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at redhat dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener 2013-02-01
10:10:17 UTC ---
With another patch to PTA we now are bottle-necked by the C fronted
in update_label_decls ;)
parser function body: 125.32 (43%) usr
alias stmt walking : 7.49 (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56166
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-02-01
11:25:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> That said, for sure I don't mean to unconditionally oppose fixes to the
> current
> implementation, eh Jon's idea seems fine to me in principle, if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-02-01
11:32:32 UTC ---
debug_allocator doesn't meet the relaxed allocator requirements in C++11, let
alone C++03. At the very least it needs operator== and operator!=, and needs
rebind because its t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-02-01
11:33:23 UTC ---
The comment saying "This is precisely the allocator defined in the C++
Standard." is pretty misleading ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56171
Bug #: 56171
Summary: syscall FAILs on Solaris
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #26 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-02-01
12:22:05 UTC ---
You are right, your suggestions is what I sketched in comment #21 as choices 1
or 2. Sorry for my unclear expalanation of what was actually happening.
I don't have a pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56168
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2013-02-01
12:34:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 29328
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29328
patch
We do stream things properly as / not as builtin. Only we end up replacing
the non
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener 2013-02-01
12:38:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 1 12:38:45 2013
New Revision: 195646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195646
Log:
2013-02-01 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56168
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-02-01
12:40:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29329
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29329
alternative patch
Patch which disables fixup_decls in LTRANS mode (fixes the testcase). T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56172
Bug #: 56172
Summary: net FAILs on Solaris
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56173
Bug #: 56173
Summary: Several libgo tests FAIL on Solaris/SPARC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55970
--- Comment #5 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-02-01
13:34:20 UTC ---
I sent for review a simple fix that can be considered as workaround for this
issue - I simply change macros
#define PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED TARGET_PUSH_ARGS
that allows user t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54127
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
13:57:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 13:57:46 2013
New Revision: 195648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195648
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55236
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
13:58:58 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 13:58:55 2013
New Revision: 195649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195649
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> > > Thus, I close the bug as INVALID.
> > ... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and
> > remove
> > the XFAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55094
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:00:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:00:12 2013
New Revision: 195650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195650
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:02:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:02:33 2013
New Revision: 195651
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195651
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:03:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:03:44 2013
New Revision: 195652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195652
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55652
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:05:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:05:42 2013
New Revision: 195653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195653
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54207
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:05:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:05:42 2013
New Revision: 195653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195653
Log:
Backported from mainline
2012-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55838
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:07:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:07:35 2013
New Revision: 195654
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195654
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55921
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:08:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:08:32 2013
New Revision: 195655
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195655
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55940
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:09:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:09:38 2013
New Revision: 195656
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195656
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:11:03 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:10:48 2013
New Revision: 195657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195657
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:11:54 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:11:46 2013
New Revision: 195658
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195658
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56072
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:12:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:12:29 2013
New Revision: 195659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195659
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:14:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:14:11 2013
New Revision: 195661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195661
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:15:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:15:21 2013
New Revision: 195662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195662
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56098
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:16:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:16:20 2013
New Revision: 195663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195663
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
14:17:58 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 14:17:50 2013
New Revision: 195664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195664
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55236
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55094
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56174
Bug #: 56174
Summary: Wrongly accepts "INTEGER :: b = HUGE(b)"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54207
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
Summary|[4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression] Crash |[4.6 Regression] Crash in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
Summary|[4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
--- Comment #10 from Jaku
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
Summary|[4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression]|[4.6 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56175
Bug #: 56175
Summary: Issue with combine phase on x86.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56175
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-02-01
15:58:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 29330
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29330
testcase
This test must be compiled with the following options:
"-O2 -ffast-math -msse2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56176
Bug #: 56176
Summary: internal compiler error with call to default
constructor of inner struct having a std::function
member attribute initialization
Classification: Unclas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56176
--- Comment #1 from Benoit Bayol 2013-02-01
16:05:31 UTC ---
I have just noticed that the example code can be simpler :
struct B
{
typedef struct
{
int a = 0;
} A;
B(A a = A()){}
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56176
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
--- Comment #15 from Pat Haugen 2013-02-01
16:10:09 UTC ---
The recently added switch, -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations, can be used to
prevent the transformation into an infinite loop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56176
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56167
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-02-01 16:21:58 UTC ---
> No idea why you consider the rest as bugs.
The diagnostic messages are somewhat confusing. I believe that `weakref', by
analogy with `alias', should give:
bug.c:1:1: e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-01
16:46:35 UTC ---
FYI, the proof of concept patch from Comment 27 produces no regressions in the
testsuite on x86_64-apple-darwin12...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg00070.htm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54793
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
16:54:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 1 16:54:14 2013
New Revision: 195669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195669
Log:
PR debug/54793
* final.c (need_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56177
Bug #: 56177
Summary: ICE when used forward for 'auto f();'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55839
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-01
17:58:34 UTC ---
What do you think about G++ (also) switching to emitting K for DW_AT_name
in this case? Would that break GDB type compatibility with other translation
units that had K?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-01
18:16:30 UTC ---
To allow expressions like
a(n:2*n:2) = a(n+1:2*n+1:2)
to be optimized, I will try to write a function which calculates the difference
between two gfc_expr() for easy cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey 2013-02-01 18:18:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What do you think about G++ (also) switching to emitting K for DW_AT_name
> in this case? Would that break GDB type compatibility with other translation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey 2013-02-01 18:22:21
UTC ---
> Yes, but you can do something useful even with this value of
> DW_AT_static_link, albeit not exactly what DWARF means.
Regardless, I think GCC should emit correct DWARF.
> I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56178
Bug #: 56178
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Conversion of Long_Float to Integer
triggers CONSTRAINT_ERROR overflow check failed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Vers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
Georg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||georggcc at googlemail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56179
Bug #: 56179
Summary: ERROR: Internal error: Killed (program
cc1plus)recevied while installing gnuradio.git
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56179
--- Comment #1 from William Macre 2013-02-01
19:00:26 UTC ---
ERROR: Internal error: Killed (program cc1plus)recevied while installing
gnuradio.git
What we need
-the exact version of GCC;
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-01
19:45:51 UTC ---
Does it make sense to you to use DW_AT_default_value as a flag here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #39 from Dmitry Vyukov 2013-02-01
20:00:22 UTC ---
Sorry, I was busy previous weeks. Thanks for fixing this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
--- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn 2013-02-01
20:26:37 UTC ---
Author: dje
Date: Fri Feb 1 20:26:24 2013
New Revision: 195675
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195675
Log:
PR target/54601
libgcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #66 from simon at pushface dot org 2013-02-01 21:03:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #65)
Something amazing has happened with Xcode 4.6.
I'm running Darwin 12.2.1, Georg is running 11.4.2.
When I built r195611 with Xcode 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #32 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-01
21:22:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 29332
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29332
first attempt at va_gc implementation
The attached patch is a first attempt at replacing th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey 2013-02-01 21:44:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Does it make sense to you to use DW_AT_default_value as a flag here?
That would be fine by me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #33 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-01
21:45:42 UTC ---
Replacing the...
ctors->qsort (sort_by_ctor_priority);
with...
qsort(ctors, ctor_index+1, sizeof(ctor_record), sort_by_ctor_priority);
appears to solve the bootstrap i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |WAITING
--- Comment #67 from Er
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-01
22:16:47 UTC ---
> I think this would be a nice addition.
OK, I'm attaching the patchlet. I can submit it when stage #1 opens.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01
22:19:45 UTC ---
Can you explain why normal qsort wouldn't do the sort in one pass?
You just do
if (ctor_recordA->priority > ctor_recordB->priority)
return -1;
if (ctor_recordA->prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-01
22:20:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 29333
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29333
patch to tweak the static chain at -O0
* function.c (instantiate_decls): Process the s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56174
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56179
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-02-01
23:30:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> ERROR: Internal error: Killed (program cc1plus)recevied while installing
> gnuradio.git
Does it really say "recevied" not "received" ?!
Anyway
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56179
--- Comment #3 from William Macre 2013-02-01
23:39:50 UTC ---
Does it really say "recevied" not "received" ?!
YES.
Will check memory size on uSD.
Wrm
-Original Message-
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #35 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-02
05:51:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 29334
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29334
working va_gc implementation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #6 from Ami Tavory 2013-02-02 07:24:16
UTC ---
Hi Paolo (again) and Jonathan,
Thanks for offering to add the missing functionality, Jonathan.
I was wondering if there might be an interest to add _AllocatorConcept to
92 matches
Mail list logo