https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.2 |9.2.1
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvi
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94299
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> #1 0x7fffdb147b04 in
> lldb_private::CommandObject::CommandObject(lldb_private::CommandInterpreter&,
> llvm::StringRef, llvm::StringRef, llvm::StringRef, uns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94299
--- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil ---
OK, true, thanks, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94669
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #9 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> The .debug_types section isn't supposed to be output when in_lto_p
> (that's for the LTRANS units where we generally do not output any
> types into DWARF). Ins
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
2ac7fe2769890fe4c146da9cfa6d0eabb185d7db = 2020-08-03
gfortran -O2 -g -fdebug-types-section -fallow-argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96471
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 48997
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48997&action=edit
.tar.xz reproducer for: gnat
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48998
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48998&action=edit
1.cc.xz rep
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
#include
#include
#include
int main() {
void *p=(void *)0x8000;
printf( "%p""\n", p );// 0x8000
prin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93269
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56502
Bug #: 56502
Summary: entry-value: Missing DW_AT_linkage_name for C<->C++
calls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56502
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2013-03-02 18:19:42 UTC ---
FAIL: gcc-4.8.0-0.14.fc19.x86_64
FAIL: GNU C++ 4.7.3 20130221 (prerelease)
FAIL: GNU C++ 4.8.0 20130302 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49828
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56538
Bug #: 56538
Summary: No opiton to disable slow 'lock' instr. one does not
need
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56502
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29564|0 |1
is obsolete|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC tracker for PR libc/15407:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15407
gold -static has a regression due to (new, since 2012) libc _start
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57280
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil ---
[patch update] Support .eh_frame in crt1 x86_64 glibc (PR libgcc/57280,
libc/15407)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg00775.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-08-12 18:37:26 UTC ---
It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data (just not wrong
data).
Also at that time location list will need to be used and currently GDB when it
sees any location list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54405
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54405
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-06 09:05:23 UTC ---
It happened because gfortran >= 4.6 uses this function and GDB cannot
reverse-step-over such jmp-only function.
(gdb) disass _gfortran_transfer_real_write
Dump of assembler code for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
Bug #: 54534
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Missing location for unused variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52160
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52160
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-16 07:10:39 UTC ---
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.4.7
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.5.4
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.6.4 20120916 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.7.2 20120916 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20120916 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Bug #: 54820
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ada: cannot find -lstdc++ since 4.8.0
20121002
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54934
Bug #: 54934
Summary: Invalid debug/ array bounds w/-fno-range-check and
32-bit target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54934
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-15 18:41:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 28451
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28451
.f source for a reproducer
Submitting it as a PR as the testcase no longer requires -fno-r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54934
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-15 18:47:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 28452
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28452
.S from reproducer for -m32 output fixed by hand
.S file is a fix-up by hand to make -m32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
Bug #: 55056
Summary: [4.8 Regression] -O0 -g missing location for register
double var
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-24 15:23:19 UTC ---
-Og -g0 is a total failure of everything, such as:
-Breakpoint 2, func2 () at ./gdb.base/return.c:12
-12 return -5;
-(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/return.exp: continue to retur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
--- Comment #5 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-25 08:23:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> -Og -g0 doesn't produce debug info, so it should fail all debugger tests.
> -Og -g should work.
-Og -g0 is needed for GDB testsuite which expects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45124
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471
Summary: stdarg functions extraneous too-early prologue end
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-02-03 15:21:02 UTC ---
g++ (GCC) 4.6.0 20110203 (experimental) with the Comment 2 patch
template
class F {
typedef struct { int i; } C;
C a;
};
F f;
->
<1><2d>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_class_type)
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
class C {
int both_var;
void var_and_method() {}
void m() { int both_var, var_and_method; }
};
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.8.2 20130625 (prerelease)
FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil ---
It may not be exactly correct but from a practical standpoint clang has caught
my bug while not annoying me with tons of needless changes like gcc did, FYI.
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
PASS: g++ (GCC) 4.7.3 20130221 (prerelease)
- it did not generate separate line info for destructors at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44995
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
Bug #: 50299
Summary: entryval: bigendian 32bit->64bit extension breaks
address match
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50317
Bug #: 50317
Summary: [4.7 Regression] missing DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-09-07 10:57:36 UTC ---
<2><7d>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter)
<7e> DW_AT_name: s
<86> DW_AT_location: 2 byte block: 91 60 (DW_OP_fbreg: -32)
vs.
24: bf 01 00 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471
--- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-09-19 13:56:39 UTC ---
FYI a workaround is now checked in to FSF GDB HEAD:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-09/msg00140.html
I confirm gdb-7.3 / 7.3.1 does not have the workaround and gdb-7.4 is fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49750
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-09-28 23:44:50 UTC ---
-fdebug-types-section unidentifiable anonymous struct (PR debug/49750)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-09/msg00356.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
Bug #: 50806
Summary: dwarf2out crash: missing GTY?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-10-20 10:15:27 UTC ---
OK, thanks, posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01850.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50317
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-10-27 13:57:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> not sure if that is a gdb bug though ('p' is optimized out - does the
> debug info say that 'p' is zero?). Jan, can you investigate that at
> the gdb side?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
Bug #: 53235
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 20120504 broke -fdebug-types-section
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-05-07 14:32:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The testcase is failing because of the change from "A*" to "struct A*"?
Yes.
> Is that an important distinction?
In other cases it even crashes GDB, orig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-05-07 15:00:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Would
>
> DW_TAG_structure_type
> DW_AT_declaration
> DW_AT_signature
>
> be better?
I also think GDB read_structure_type should cope with it right.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at google dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-06-13 22:09:40 UTC ---
Great, thanks!
Backport definitely not needed by me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53879
Bug #: 53879
Summary: new glibc: sysinfo.go:5976:68: error: expected ‘{’
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53879
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Version|4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
Bug #: 53948
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Assignment line missing for -O0 -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53879
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54001
Bug #: 54001
Summary: GDB Regression: FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting
breakpoint at main.T.Foo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #10 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-07-17 19:09:59 UTC ---
namespace E {
class O {};
void f (O o) {}
}
namespace F {
class O {};
void f (O fo) {}
}
E::O eo;
int main () {}
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52182
Bug #: 52182
Summary: unnamed structs/unions are supported by ISO C99
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52182
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52271
Bug #: 52271
Summary: -fdebug-types-section crashes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
#include
#include
class X {
public:
int a,&b; /*
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20131008 (experimental)
<1><5b4>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_subprogr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58663
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil ---
#include
int main(void) {
char *p=malloc(1);
p[1]=1;
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58663
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: pmuldoon at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
gdb a.out -ex 'b 11' -ex r -ex 'p it'
(gdb) p it
$3 = {ref = }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Tested with:
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.6.50.20131109-cvs
libstdcxx/v6/printers.py from GCC r201888 (=with PR libstdc++/53477 fix)
: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: pmuldoon at redhat dot com, tromey at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
end iterator points nowhere, it must not be dereferenced by GDB.
(gdb) l
1
: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: pmuldoon at redhat dot com, tromey at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
(gdb) l 1
1#include
2int main() {
3 std::vector vec;
4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 31248
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31248&action=edit
Comment 7 patch as a file
I still get both warnings, applied the patch to:
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20131119 (experimenta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31248|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
now by Adam Jackson. Again a mistaken use cannot harm as it causes other
errors. And clang also does not warn on it.
int main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
class C {
public:
void *ap,*bp;
C(int i,void *p):ap(i)
,bp(p)
{}
};
g++ -c cxxctor.C
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Created attachment 31570
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31570&action=edit
Fix.
__replacement_assert: __builtin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-11-30 20:46:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Compiling the following with g++ -gdwarf-4 -o length length.cxx
[...]
>DW_AT_frame_base : 1 byte block: 9c(DW_OP_call_frame_cfa)
[...]
>
,
||jan.kratochvil at redhat
||dot com
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-10 13:27:29 UTC ---
FAIL: g++ (GCC) 4.7.0 20111210 (experimental)
It is specific for: -fdebug-types-section
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51594
Bug #: 51594
Summary: gcov-dump: cannot find -lstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51644
Bug #: 51644
Summary: [4.7 Regression] va_list vs. warning: ‘noreturn’
function does return is not fixable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51668
Bug #: 51668
Summary: class DW_AT_name does not match method's linkage name
prefix (char)1 vs. '\001'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
--- Comment #5 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-04 14:20:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> they could have unwanted
> side-effects (reading uninitialized memory, division by zero, producing NaNs
> etc.) that the debugger might complain about loudl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-21 17:02:36 UTC ---
Confirming it has fixed:
-XFAIL: gdb.cp/static-method.exp: info addr A::func() (PRMS gcc/45682)
+PASS: gdb.cp/static-method.exp: info addr A::func()
-XFAIL: gdb.cp/static-method.exp:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
--- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-22 16:48:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> There are still other few GDB testsuite regressions by -fdebug-types-section,
> I will re-check them with this fix in, thanks.
That is already filed PR deb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
Bug #: 51950
Summary: [4.6 Regression] fdebug-types-section regression for
member pointers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-23 11:22:36 UTC ---
GDB command for the PASS/FAIL output:
gdb -nx a.out -ex 'b 6' -ex r -ex 'ptype F'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #19 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-24 05:14:00 UTC ---
../gcchead/configure --enable-64-bit-bfd --disable-static --enable-shared
--enable-debug --disable-sim --enable-gold --enable-plugins --disable-werror
--with-separate-debug-dir=/usr/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #21 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-24 10:17:14 UTC ---
With r183465 it really builds for me now, thanks.
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
std::vector::shrink_to_fit() when reducing the size it still calls new()+copy.
It could use realloc() when the objects are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil ---
You apparently know better all the pitfalls, I just got shocked that a
squeezing shrink_to_fit() does a copy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> I can't find anywhere a guarantee that realloc doesn't move stuff when the
> new size is smaller than the old.
In practice it does not.
> What would be the poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 44236
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44236&action=edit
incredibleshrinkingvector.C
What's wrong with this implementation? The permitted operator new symbols
interpos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> Does your &n!=&alias##n check still work if operator new is replaced in a
> different translation unit, but the default one is the only one in scope in
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013
--- Comment #13 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Why the example code should not work with "a user-provided non-member function
with the same signature defined anywhere in the program, in any source file,
replaces the default version. Its declaration does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81155
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> where gdb sees the difference and why doesn't it make the file
> containing main the default?
pr43051-1.exe.good
<1><117>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
