--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-01 22:14 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Paolo, what about
>
> error ("invalid use of Boolean expression as operand to %")
>
> ?
Cetainly works for me...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33208
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 13:03 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 15:23 ---
Currently 4_2-branch and 4_1-branch also give the same.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 17:12 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 23:00 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-02 23:29 ---
Humm, too tricky.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 12:09 ---
Fixing the second ICE.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 16:35 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 17:20 ---
Note, in GCC any -Ox, x > 3 is identical to -O3.
Anyway, I think we can safely add inline to std::accumulate and
std::inner_product.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Remo
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-03 17:50 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 08:41 ---
The patch itself is trivial but in our experience changing the inlining
patterns can have far reaching and unpredictable fall-outs. Thus, better not
touching the release branches, sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 11:10 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 14:28 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 15:01 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 16:51 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 17:47 ---
Hummm, with reference to the patch in Comment #9: I don't think 'enum { };' is
flagged in the standard as ill-formed because of the empty enumerator-list
(that possibility is explicitly discussed in 7.2/5),
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-04 17:53 ---
Humm, no, anonymous enums are clearly legal, sorry about the stupid mistake.
Still, it's not completely clear to me the discussion in 7.2/5 of empty
enumerator-lists, evidently, we must assume those are illegal *only*
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-05 09:33 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0. Frankly, I'm not interested in working on the other
branches...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-05 10:41 ---
Fixed in 4_2-branch too.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-05 19:12 ---
Fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-06 15:39 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-06 19:20 ---
Fixed in mainline and 4_2-branch.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 00:36 ---
Mark?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 00:34 ---
Now in mainline things are better:
26698.C: In member function X::operator X&() const:
26698.C:25: error: invalid initialization of reference of type X& from
expression of type const X
I'm not sure whe
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 00:39 ---
Meant line *38* of course, sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26698
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-07 17:35 ---
Feedback not forthcoming
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 02:08 ---
Jason, could you please have a look to this issue? In my hunt it appeared with
your fix for c++/14032 (r128076). Thanks.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 02:22 ---
Now the ICE is at line 6586. Can be triggered with this smaller snippet:
struct null_type;
template
struct tuple_impl
{
template
struct append
{
typedef tuple_impl type;
};
int data;
};
template
class
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 11:14 ---
Thanks. The patch passes regtesting.
Maybe Andrew can help us for a reduced testcase?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-08 19:09 ---
Hi. So, what shall we do here? I can remove the warning completely or
conditionalize it to -Wextra, for example. Just let me know...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-16 22:55 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-17 17:22 ---
I can't reproduce the problem with current (128551) mainline. Likely a
transient issue, otherwise, please reopen.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-17 19:18 ---
Not actively working on it (for now)
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 10:55 ---
Janis, is it possible to have a regression hunt? Thanks in advance.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 14:36 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 15:40 ---
Fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 15:39 ---
Thanks a lot Jakub, I'm going to do exactly that but as part of
cxx_pretty_print.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33462
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 18:06 ---
Fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 18:29 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33477 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 18:29 ---
*** Bug 33478 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33477
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33475 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** Bug 33481 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33475
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:06 ---
If Gaby agree with that change, I'm ok with it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** Bug 33480 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33475
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-18 19:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33475 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-19 14:43 ---
Thanks a lot!
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-19 15:17 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-19 17:59 ---
Hi again... A regression hunt would be useful for this one too...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 09:34 ---
Great Janis, I will ask your help more often: hunts are very helpful for
quickly fixing recent bugs!
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 10:21 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 10:05 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-20 23:08 ---
Fixed for mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-21 16:50 ---
Looking into it: I mean to investigate whether a relaxed warning per Comment #9
is implementable in a decently clean way.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-21 19:12 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-22 00:04 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-22 18:08 ---
I'm not sure, but naively appears fixable similarly to the attributes... Jason?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-23 11:52 ---
By the way, the hunk of code at issue dates back to this time:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-10/msg00589.html
(and, by the way, I cannot find an explicit approval in the mailing list).
Anyway, the effect of
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-23 18:58 ---
For the record, Comeau also rejects it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26404
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-23 22:55 ---
Double checked, closing.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-23 23:02 ---
Any news? ;)
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #14 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 09:06 ---
I think Gaby said the issue doesn't exist anymore after Roger work. Otherwise,
please reopen, thanks.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 09:15 ---
Hi Janis, a regression hunt would be useful, indeed... Thanks!
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 14:07 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 16:46 ---
I see, thanks. Well, if I can bother you a bit more about your very welcome
work on attribute aligned, I noticed also PR10179. Thanks again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21385
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 17:05 ---
In any case, the pre-processed code doesn't compile anymore with 4.2 and
mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 18:01 ---
Isn't the C++ front-end also fixed? I can confirm that currently the error
comes from cp_parser_jump_statement. In general, the check in build_bc_goto is
apparently dead: I have been able to build and test
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 18:10 ---
Maybe the underlying issue is tree-optimization/3713, not fixed in
less-than-trivial cases?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-24 23:33 ---
Therefore, if I understand correctly, we want to reject the code and 4.2.0 was
already implementing that behavior. This is not a regression, we can close it
as fixed. If I'm mistaken, please reopen, thanks.
--
pca
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-25 14:54 ---
When fixing this bug we also want to make sure we do not reject this valid
variant:
template struct A
{
struct S { int X; };
static S a;
};
template typename A::S A::a = { X : 1 };
void foo()
{
A<0&
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-25 17:39 ---
Note: given the C99 extensions, this is actually reject-valid: for instance
Comeau in relaxed mode accepts it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32385
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-25 23:26 ---
The fix seems simple...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-25 23:54 ---
*** Bug 33556 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-25 23:54 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30303 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-26 18:24 ---
Seems due to a trivial thinko in the changes for 27668, 27962, etc..
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-27 09:24 ---
Fixed in mainline.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-27 10:10 ---
Indeed, in general you have to add:
const int A::anInt;
At high optimization levels the the static int is "inlined" but this is just
implementation defined behavior...
--
pcarlini at suse dot
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-27 16:36 ---
I can't reproduce...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-27 21:19 ---
I can see now from the reduced testcase that the library uses mt_alloc, not the
default allocator. Next time, just say it... ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33572
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 00:10 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > >g++: Internal error: Segmentation fault (program as)
> > as is crashing so I am assuming you don't have an updated as from IBM.
>
> You
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 15:46 ---
Patch at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01551.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31747
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 15:43 ---
Patch at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01711.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 15:39 ---
Patch at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01999.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33461
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 15:40 ---
Patch at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01933.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31446
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 16:01 ---
My patch for PR33461 fixes this one too ;)
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 17:04 ---
Short term at least, could be considered a duplicate of PR32256 (and PR32368).
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 15:10 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 17:45 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 17:53 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 16:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm not a GCC expert, but that patch looks like it will silently change the
> behaviour of the compiler when -pedantic is not given.
When -pedantic is not given (the default) a pe
701 - 800 of 2287 matches
Mail list logo
