http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53784
Dag Lem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-redhat-linux
--- Comment #3 from Dag Lem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-01 05:51:26
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> C++ may also require functions rather than macros in various cases. It's
> the job of the libstdc++ headers, provided by GCC, to provide a (probably
> inlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
Kevin Scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Web-based GCC 4.7.1 manual: |GCC 4.7.1 manual: -dM and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #18 from Richard Henderson 2012-08-01
02:25:03 UTC ---
But this is what you get when cross-compiling from i686.
3267 rtx temp = expand_mult_const (mode, op0, -coeff, NULL_RTX,
(gdb) p algorithm
$1 = {cost = {cost = 24, latency =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #17 from John David Anglin 2012-08-01
00:40:24 UTC ---
(gdb) p *(const struct algorithm *)$r17
$21 = {cost = {cost = 24, latency = 24}, ops = 7, op = {alg_m, alg_sub_t2_m,
alg_add_factor, alg_sub_t2_m, alg_sub_t2_m, alg_add_t2_m,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #16 from John David A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54074
ebeworld changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54074
--- Comment #3 from ebeworld 2012-07-31 23:50:18
UTC ---
Daniel, i agree with you and i wasnt reading the "elided" part of the document.
This is not a bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27915|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-31 22:55:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 27916
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27916
zz.s.txt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-31 22:54:59 UTC ---
On 31-Jul-12, at 5:29 PM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> How does this -O1 output compare with native?
There seems to an off by one error in various shifts, etc. For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-07-31 22:45:25 UTC ---
4.7 20110626
FP EMULATION: 318.44 : 152.80 : 35.26
4.7 20110703
FP EMULATION: 228.08 : 109.44 : 25.25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-31
22:16:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 27915
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27915
Speed up stack var conflict matric computation
The patch speeds up the conflict matrix computation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2012-07-31 22:14:51
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Jul 31 22:14:44 2012
New Revision: 190022
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190022
Log:
PR target/54131
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (mem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-07-31 22:12:51 UTC ---
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
>
> --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2012-07-31
> 20:13:38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson 2012-07-31
21:29:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27914
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27914
Cross-compile output
Hmm. I can't seem to reproduce this via a cross-compiler.
I tried CC='gc
-4.7.0
--with-local-prefix=/home/dave/opt/gnu --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --build=hppa-linux-gnu --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-java-gc=boehm
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,ada,lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120731 (experimental) [trunk revision 189993
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54147
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31 20:43:16 UTC ---
For TBPs there seems to be a similar but non-equivalent check in
resolve_typebound_procedure. It is supposed to check for F08:C465, but
apparently is also applied to the inter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54060
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-31
20:41:51 UTC ---
Every file that includes the code gets a different type, so S (in comment 0)
and B (in comment 1) violate the ODR if defined in more than one translation
unit. That's why the warning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54147
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31 20:36:41 UTC ---
Equivalent test case for TBPs:
interface gen
procedure gen
end interface
type, abstract :: t1
contains
procedure(gen),deferred,nopass :: p1
procedure(g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-31
20:33:56 UTC ---
Time is spent in add_scope_conflicts() in this loop:
FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
add_scope_conflicts_1 (bb, work, true);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54060
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2012-07-31
20:21:51 UTC ---
What is the purpose of warning about the use of an anonymous type in this
context?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2012-07-31 20:13:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> If your system headers declare isnan with bool return type I advise making
> fixincludes fix them.
But the C++ standard requires a bool return type, using fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-31 20:10:55 UTC ---
> Mine.
Expected result for testcase is 112975202 (0x6bbdd62). Miscompiled
result is
116077092194 (0x1b06bbdd62).
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-07-31 19:59:50 UTC ---
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I understand your comments, but I don't know what conclusion to take from them
> about whether gcc should recog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin 2012-07-31
19:41:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 27913
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27913
Testcase
Testcase produces wrong output when compiled at -O0 and -O1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-07-31 19:20:09
UTC ---
Joseph,
I understand your comments, but I don't know what conclusion to take from them
about whether gcc should recognize int/bool isnan(double) as a builtin...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54147
Bug #: 54147
Summary: [F03] Interface checks for PPCs & TBPs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54060
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin 2012-07-31
18:51:26 UTC ---
Regarding the remaining acats fails, the following line in a-calend.adb
appears to be miscompiled:
Date_Dur := Date_Dur - Time_Dur (Four_Year_Segs) *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-07-31 18:47:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Are you compiling GCC with --enable-checking=release to do the timings?
I first noticed the issue with the compiler provided by debian (4.7.1), which
has --en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc64-linux, |sparc64-linux,
|arm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42418
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-31
18:38:20 UTC ---
Are you compiling GCC with --enable-checking=release to do the timings?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Bug #: 54146
Summary: Very slow compile at -O1 (expand vars)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42418
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31 18:32:46 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jul 31 18:32:41 2012
New Revision: 190017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190017
Log:
2012-07-31 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54145
Bug #: 54145
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] no symbol generated for `void
QMailThreadSortKey::deserialize(QDataStre
am&)'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #13 from Janis Johnson 2012-07-31
18:01:55 UTC ---
The scan-assembler finds the expression at least once and passes. The
scan-assembler-times directive expects to find the expression twice, but the
returned match is 5 lines, not 2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54144
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #6 from Paul H. Hargrove 2012-07-31
17:59:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> sldi and srdi are both standard PowerPC64 instructions.
IBM's "Programming Environments Manual for 64-Bit Microprocessors" lists sldi
and srdi as "Simpl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-07-31 17:56:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> For some reason I couldn't apply the patch, but manually changed the tests to
> use { scan-assembler-times regexp 2 } instead of { scan assembler re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53615
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54144
Bug #: 54144
Summary: With -sdt=c++0x certain incorrect arguments to
map.insert cause gcc crash
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
--- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-07-31 17:50:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 27909
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27909
20120429
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
--- Comment #1 from wbrana 2012-07-31 17:48:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27908
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27908
20120422
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53923
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.sandiford at linaro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53233
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #67 from Hagay 2012-07-31 17:34:02 UTC
---
Just reported to Mentor. Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #11 from Janis Johnson 2012-07-31
17:30:15 UTC ---
Sorry, I had been assuming that the tests in our tree match what's upstream but
the expressions to match are slightly different. I'll keep investigating.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
Bug #: 54143
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #5 from Gary Funck 2012-07-31 17:14:24
UTC ---
Here is the complete output at the point of a make failure.
/home/garyf/gcc-4.8/wrk/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/garyf/gcc-4.8/wrk/./gcc/ -B/home/gar
yf/gcc-4.8/rls/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alain.hebert at polymtl dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54141
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #4 from Gary Funck 2012-07-31 16:57:55
UTC ---
One of target platforms is running RHEL 6.2 on a POWER7 series processor.
The binutils RPM is:
binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.28.el6.ppc64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #3 from Gary Funck 2012-07-31 16:53:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> sldi and srdi are both standard PowerPC64 instructions.
>
> How did you configure GCC?
No special switches. For example,
$src/configure \
CFLAGS='-O0 -g3'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #66 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-31
16:49:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #65)
> Also saw the same problem on MIPS
> Compiling using 'gcc version 4.5.2 (Sourcery CodeBench Lite 2011.09-86)'
You should report that issue to Mentor becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #10 from Janis Johnson 2012-07-31
16:49:23 UTC ---
The problem is the regular expression, which matches far too much text and ends
up with a length of 5 instead of 2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54141
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-31
16:35:02 UTC ---
sldi and srdi are both standard PowerPC64 instructions.
How did you configure GCC?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
Hagay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hagayg at broadcom dot com
--- Comment #65 from H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54140
--- Comment #3 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-31 16:18:14
UTC ---
Yeah, sorry, it was a bad example. Assigning 72 to this enum is undefined, so
maybe this behavior is justifiable. The real-world example I was looking at
didn't have that issue, thoug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-07-31
16:16:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> For some reason I couldn't apply the patch, but manually changed the tests to
> use { scan-assembler-times regexp 2 } instead of { scan assembler rege
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck 2012-07-31 16:12:18
UTC ---
We have determined that we can bypass the failure with the following configure
switches:
--with-long-double-128 --with-cpu-32=power4 --with-tune-32=power6
--with-cpu-64=power4 --with-tu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #8 from Janis Johnson 2012-07-31
15:56:12 UTC ---
For some reason I couldn't apply the patch, but manually changed the tests to
use { scan-assembler-times regexp 2 } instead of { scan assembler regexp }.
Ramana, have you tried runnin
The subscrubers who took care to read to the Friday news, earned as much as
+70% (seventy percent, I repeat) on V N DB today.
V N DB was priced 0.08 on this day, those who bought $2,000 on July 27th got
$3,200 today and the people who invested ten grands now have $16,000.
Where else can you g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
Bug #: 54142
Summary: ppc64 build failure - Unrecognized opcode: `sldi' (and
`srdi`)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54141
Bug #: 54141
Summary: The optimizer -O produces a bug.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54140
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-31
15:34:19 UTC ---
However changing the range of the enum doesn't make any difference, so please
ignore my comment!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2012-07-31 15:26:56
UTC ---
I configured with:
--disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-libmudflap --disable-fixed-point
--disable-decimal-float --with-arch=mips32r2 --with-synci --with-llsc
--with-mips-plt -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54140
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-31
15:27:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This would have been appropriate if I wrote "case 72:", but I didn't -- I
> wrote
> "case (Enum)72:". This is an explicit indication that I want gcc to t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2012-07-31 15:17:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 27906
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27906
Compressed preprocessed test case
Sorry about not including the attachment earlier, I thought I had d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54120
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-07-31 14:43:18 UTC ---
In C it's a macro not a function and there is no guarantee that there
exists a function with that name, or what the semantics of such a function
would be. In C++, un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54140
Bug #: 54140
Summary: -Wswitch shouldn't complain about out-of-range values
that are cast to the correct type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52412
amker.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54139
Bug #: 54139
Summary: [4.8 regression] some ARM Thumb-2 tests appear to be
run on ARMv5TE hardware causing unhandled exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54134
--- Comment #5 from koen.poppe at cs dot kuleuven.be 2012-07-31 13:10:46 UTC ---
Thank you for the quick response and solution!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54138
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |bootstrap
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54134
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54134
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31 13:04:00 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jul 31 13:03:53 2012
New Revision: 190010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190010
Log:
2012-07-31 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc64-linux |sparc64-linux,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54109
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-31
12:34:42 UTC ---
Inlining ends up generating
MEM[(long unsigned int *)&b + 8B].bits[2305843009213693951]{lb: 0 sz: 8} = 0
which is of course bogus, but it's what the code does - referencing
b.me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54138
Bug #: 54138
Summary: configuring --without-cloog but executable links
against system cloog
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-07-31
12:25:10 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 31 12:25:04 2012
New Revision: 190007
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190007
Log:
gcc:
2012-07-31 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54137
--- Comment #2 from vagran 2012-07-31 11:46:02
UTC ---
Thanks!
Would be fine if the error message could contain the probable cause hint for
this kind of error (if technically possible).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54137
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54137
Bug #: 54137
Summary: expected primary-expression error when accessing
template method
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #19 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-07-31
11:11:22 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. Judging by the time the original wrong patch went in, this
should be a regression and thus I'll commit this to 4.7 too after a week or so.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54088
--- Comment #8 from Jan Engelhardt 2012-07-31 11:04:01
UTC ---
The ICE continues to occur even if I leave out the handful of openSUSE patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-07-31
10:56:59 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jul 31 10:56:52 2012
New Revision: 190005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190005
Log:
PR target/53975
* sel-sched-i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54088
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|rguenther at su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54088
Jan Engelhardt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54134
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #6 from wbrana 2012-07-31 10:11:48 UTC ---
clang
FP EMULATION: 405.92 : 194.78 : 44.95
4.4.7
FP EMULATION: 337.44 : 161.92 : 37.36
4.5.4
FP EMULATION: 320.08 :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53624
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
