--- Comment #5 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-05-06 16:36 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Note that this is likely not a problem in practice as
> memcpy (p, p, sizeof (*p)) is difficult to implement
> in a way that would make it not work.
>From Julian Sewar
--- Comment #6 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-06-02 23:02 ---
Also a problem on x86_64-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg00190.html
--
ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-06-27 00:49 ---
This appears to still be broken in 32-bit mode.
I just built GCC @148996 on x86_64, and compiled the attached test case with
'-m32':
(gdb) start
Breakpoint 1 at 0x80483d9: file gcc-pr40012-test.c, lin
--- Comment #14 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-06-29 20:11 ---
I verified that @146817 is not causing the current 32-bit breakage; I'll open a
separate PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40012
i386.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
GCC build triplet: x8
--- Comment #3 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-06-29 22:36 ---
Confirmed working correctly @147994.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40596
--- Comment #8 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-07-29 22:51 ---
Confirm: r149235 fixes the problem here :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40596
g t.c -O0 && ./a.exe
mode = 81ff
--
Summary: GCC mis-optimizes GDB
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-07-30 14:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=18272)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18272&action=view)
pre-processed t.c
Some answers:
The -fno-strict-aliasing does help:
/usr/local/mingw-w64/bin/x86
--- Comment #10 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-07-31 15:56 ---
Filed MingW bug here:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2830386&group_id=2435&atid=102435
--
ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-host_pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-host_pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-host_pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39285
ONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-unknown-l
--- Comment #5 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-03-27 01:51 ---
dup of bug 12990 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18749
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56235
Bug #: 56235
Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus "error: invalid conversion from
‘unsigned char’ to ‘B::Mode’ [-fpermissive]"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unkn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56237
Bug #: 56237
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE in lang_* check: failed in
push_local_name, at cp/decl.c:924
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56237
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56238
Bug #: 56238
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE in tree check: expected
record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have
template_type_parm in lookup_conversions, at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56241
Bug #: 56241
Summary: ICE in toplev.c:332 on invalid
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
Bug #: 56243
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE in tree check: expected
field_decl, have identifier_node in
fixed_type_or_null, at cp/class.c:6645
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56246
Bug #: 56246
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE in assign_by_spills, at
lra-assigns.c:1262
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56262
Bug #: 56262
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE in
ipa_make_edge_direct_to_target, at ipa-prop.c:2111
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56272
Bug #: 56272
Summary: Poor diagnostics for error: specialization of ...
after instantiation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56265
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56262
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56265
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2013-02-12
00:48:01 UTC ---
Thanks for the fix.
We've confirmed that this fix also fixes the crash in "irreducible" test case
from PR56262.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56359
Bug #: 56359
Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus "error: no matching function
for call to ..."
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56411
Bug #: 56411
Summary: [4.8 regression] Wrong preprocessor output with
-std=c++11
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56411
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56243
--- Comment #6 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2013-02-23
23:06:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I think the testcase is invalid
Looks like you are right, and it's been over-reduced.
> Shouldn't the below line be diagnosed, even if it is in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56566
Bug #: 56566
Summary: bogus "is narrower than values of its type" warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
Bug #: 56589
Summary: [4.8 regression] Array bounds violation is very
end-user unfriendly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56607
Bug #: 56607
Summary: [4.8 regression] GCC fails to warn on division by zero
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56641
Bug #: 56641
Summary: [4.7/4.8 regression] Bogus warning: 'A' has a field
'A::e' whose type uses the anonymous namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unkno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56641
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56757
Bug #: 56757
Summary: ICE in
int_cst_value/get_non_default_template_args_count on
invalid source
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Bug #: 56768
Summary: [4.7] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1147
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56769
Bug #: 56769
Summary: [4.7] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:2511
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56947
Bug #: 56947
Summary: [4.7.3 regression] Bogus 'XX' was not declared in this
scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56951
Bug #: 56951
Summary: Poor diagnostics for error: invalid abstract return
type 'XXX'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56972
Bug #: 56972
Summary: Missing "may be used uninitialized" warning for
"obvious" uninitialized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56972
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57072
Bug #: 57072
Summary: bogus "is used uninitialized" warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57078
Bug #: 57078
Summary: Unhelpful -Wunused-variable warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #27 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2013-04-29
23:18:29 UTC ---
Here is a reduced test case in which g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130426 (experimental)
produces infinite loop with -O2 due to aggressive loop optimization, but
doesn't warn (making the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57196
Bug #: 57196
Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus "aggregate ... has incomplete
type and cannot be defined"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57199
Bug #: 57199
Summary: [4.8, 4.9] Bogus warning: iteration invokes
undefined behavior -Waggressive-loop-optimizations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unkn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57200
Bug #: 57200
Summary: [4.8/4.9] aggressive-loop-optimizations notes appear
even when warning itself is suppressed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57199
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|IN
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
I noticed that compiling t.c with '-gdwarf-4', I get:
<15> DW_AT_comp_dir: (indirect string, offset: 0x4e): /tmp
But comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at google dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I don't see how this is wrong.
It's wrong to emit dwarf2 because I asked for dwarf4 explicitly.
> Mixing dwarf4 and dwarf2 should be ok.
Ok for what?
One of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Test case:
#include
void fn (int *data) {
write (1, data++, sizeof (*data));
}
Using trunk GCC:
gcc -c -Wall t.c && echo ok
ok
g++ -c -Wall t.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54293
Bug #: 54293
Summary: When a reference is bound to subobject of a temporary,
lifetime of the temporary is not extended
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54293
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
n: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux
c
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google reference: b/9004062
Quite similar, but not identica
oduct: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google reference: b/9004260
Test case:
class A { };
class
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google reference: b/9018720
Compiles fine with with gcc-4.6 and Clang.
ICE's with 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 (current trunk @r199023):
g++ -c test.ii
test.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57199
--- Comment #4 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> it can't prove the following loop that uses _8 as upper bound is dead, ...
Do we need a separate "may invoke undefined behavior" warning?
In our codebase of 10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57199
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Reproduced with current trunk @r199204.
g++ -c t.cc
t.cc:17:25: error: ‘F2’ is neither function nor member function; cannot be
declared friend
friend Foo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57319
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Thanks for the fix.
Confirmed for both the reduced test case, and the original source.
Can this be back-ported to 4.8 branch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57317
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> Fixed the false positive for 4.8.1.
Did you mean "fixed on trunk" ?
On trunk I see
2013-05-20 Jason Merrill
PR c++/57317
* decl2.c (dete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57317
--- Comment #5 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> Look again; it's commit 199104 on gcc-4_8-branch.
I can see it now. Thanks for the fix!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56757
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Google ref: b/9070967
This is a 4.8/4.9 regression.
We have ~300 test cases (out of 500,000) that are all failing (in i386 mode
only) due to this bug.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
This appears to have been broken since 4.6.
Test case:
#include
int main() {
std::vector var;
for (int var : var) {
}
}
Using trunk at r199570:
g++ -c b.cc -std=c++11
b.cc: In function ‘int main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Mis-computing strlen() in shipping GCC releases doesn't look like P3 to me.
Could anyone please confirm this bug, set priority appropriately, and/or
comment on how this should be fixed? Thanks,
iority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref: b/9321660
Current trunk (r199768) fails to compile this test when ACCESS is private:
g++ -c proto1.xx.cc -Wall -DACCESS=public && echo OK
OK
g++ -c p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57550
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think the problem is that you cannot take an address of a private static
> function as that would get around access controls.
Surely you can in a class member
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref: b/9771363
Test:
template
struct ResultCallback {
virtual void Run(T) = 0;
};
template
struct FunctionResultCallback: public
iority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Test case:
class Foo {
struct Bar { };
friend class F;
};
class F
#ifdef BUG
: public Foo::Bar
#endif
{
void Fn() { Foo::Bar b; }
};
Using "g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 2013073
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref: b/10151411
Reproduced with current trunk, but is broken since at least gcc-4.3.1.
On Linux/x86_64, libstdc++.so.6 __cxa_get_globals looks like so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Which most Linux distro default to anyways ...
Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS doesn't.
Configuring trunk GCC on it doesn't default to GNU2 TLS either.
What is the way to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58053
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #2)
> What is the way to turn it on?
Compiling test case with -mtls-dialect=gnu2 does appear to improve the picture:
g++ -fPIC -O2 -S t.cc -mtls-dialect=gnu2
__c
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref b/10321377
/// --- cut ---
template
void Foo(U&...) {}
template
void Foo(const U&...) {}
void Bar() {
const int a = 0;
Foo(a);
}
/// --- cut ---
The test compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref b/10272620
/// --- cut ---
struct A {
A();
A(A&&);
};
struct B {
A const a = A();
};
B b;
/// --- cut ---
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref b/10322506
/// --- cut ---
#include
int main()
{
const std::string cs;
std::string s;
if (cs[0] != '\0') return 1;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58163
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
The fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=7e66313066525b0ce38e140e6d9c815e19d119bf
I don't believe the test is quite correct:
+// { dg-options "-std=gnu++11 -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC" }
I don'
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref: b/10458361
Test:
struct A {
explicit A() { } // remove explicit -> compiles fine
A(int x) : A() { }
};
Builds with Cl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58328
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> I suspect the error isn't bogus, current clang++ also rejects it.
Hmm, perhaps you are correct. The original test that is *not* rejected by clang
was:
struct A
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref: b/10634418
This appears to be very similar to PR 57770
Using g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130904 (experimental)
cat t.cc
struct A {
struct
P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Google ref: b/10727382
This source:
class Test {
public:
Test() = default;
Test(char *b) { }
int i;
};
__thread Test test;
fails to compile with current trunk (g++ (GCC) 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58514
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Fixed by r202832 and r202836.
Sorry about the breakage.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50938
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
Bug #: 53220
Summary: g++ mis-compiles compound literals
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-03
19:53:07 UTC ---
gcc-compiled code for reference:
(gdb) disas main
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x00400540 <+0>: push %rbp
0x00400541 <+1>: mov$0x1,%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #6 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-07
16:28:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> 1) to keep the current G++ semantics of compound literals, but change its
> behavior due to the implementation change (with clobber marker);
I would arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53368
Bug #: 53368
Summary: [4.7/4.8 regression] c++11 reject-valid-code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53368
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #11 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-17
00:02:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> C++98 and C++11 define the lifetime of a temporary as lasting until the end of
> the full-expression, unless its lifetime is extended by binding it to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #13 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-22
17:49:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> So yes, what remains for this bug is to complain about undefined behavior due
> to accessing the value of an object after its lifetime has ended.
The d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #13 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-22
17:49:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> So yes, what remains for this bug is to complain about undefined behavior due
> to accessing the value of an object after its lifetime has ended.
The d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Bug #: 53524
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsupressable enum
comparison warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #15 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-30
19:13:02 UTC ---
I've got another small reproducer, that shows up as a slightly different
failure, but very likely is the same problem:
namespace util { } // comment out => problem disappears
nam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #19 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-31
21:33:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> In any case I recommend not mixing together here different issues:
I don't believe there are separate issues here.
> the first
> one, subject of this r
1 - 100 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
