http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58720
Bug ID: 58720
Summary: FreeBSD 4.8 bootstrap fails due to missing stdint.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58719
Bug ID: 58719
Summary: libgcc/enable-execute-stack-mprotect.c: bootstrap
failure due to missing #include
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany ---
I am currently testing a merge which is before Alexey's changes.
There is no harm in keeping this bug open.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #3 from Hristo Venev ---
#include
template
void operator""_foo(){
CharT arr[]{str...};
for(CharT i:arr) std::cout<<(int)i<<' ';
}
int main(){
U"\x1\x10001\x10002"_foo;
}
Current output: "0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 "
E
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
--- Comment #3 from Yury Gribov ---
Got it. I wonder whether we should keep the bug opened until we merge or close
it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I've tried to improve it in the past, but I think there's no easy way to do
> it.
A possible fix might be to change the Standard ;-) Despite the smiley I
serio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
Alexey Samsonov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||samsonov at google dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
--- Comment #1 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 30999
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30999&action=edit
Proposed patch
It seems that this CHECK should be removed to allow disabling malloc tracing.
Patch is attached.
-Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
Bug ID: 58718
Summary: Invalid check in libsanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #2 from Ali Baharev ---
>> Why do the 32 and 64 bit versions behave differently?
>
> They don't. I think maybe you forgot to use -std=c++11 in the first case?
Yes, that's what happened. Sorry, my mistake.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Ali Baharev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ali.baharev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
--- Comment #1 from masoud_mxm at yahoo dot com ---
Comment on attachment 30997
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30997
Two .cpp source code
Tests are made in MinGW/32bit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Bug ID: 58717
Summary: Pre-calculation optimization is omitted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Hristo,
Thanks for finishing your thought.
So if i have:
template
void
operator""_foo
{
ChatT arr[]{str...};
}
U"\x1\x10001\x10002"_foo;
I should see this righ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #1 from Hristo Venev ---
Obviously bugzilla doesn't like unicode.
U"\x1\x10001\x10002"
current:
expected:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase which shows we are not doing some other loop opt due to not
changing the loop:
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
void f(int mlen, unsigned char *dst, size_t d_len, unsigned char *cpy)
{
unsig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58716
Bug ID: 58716
Summary: [PATCH] MSP430X check is inverted
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
Bug ID: 58715
Summary: Missed loop condition optimization opportunity
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58709
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
Joshua Cogliati changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30979|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Oct 13 13:29:28 2013
New Revision: 203498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203498&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/58662
* combine.c (try_combine): Take into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
--- Comment #2 from Ali Baharev ---
OK, sorry for the dupe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ali.baharev at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58691
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Bug ID: 58714
Summary: Bogus value category in ternary operator?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58711
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
Bug ID: 58713
Summary: error: cannot bind ‘std::ostream {aka
std::basic_ostream}’ lvalue to
‘std::basic_ostream&&’
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
Bug ID: 58712
Summary: [4.9 Regression] issues found by
--enable-checking=valgrind
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini ---
In any case I see that the issue with explicit instantiation is recorded in
2193. Let's see what happens in EWG.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58709
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
The warning is target independent and only depends on the type. You get the
same warning for int vs long even if they are the same size.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
congh at google dot com wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
>
>--- Comment #2 from Cong Hou ---
>I think this issue is more like a missed optimization.
>
>If the iteration n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58710
--- Comment #1 from Misty De Meo ---
It looks like the check was added in a4a5a77adfc9c28d6963e5ae054c997d57cfc7fa
(http://repo.or.cz/w/official-gcc.git/commitdiff/a4a5a77adfc9c28d6963e5ae054c997d57cfc7fa),
which didn't touch the existing behaviou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to bredelin from comment #10)
> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2193
I suggest you open a separate bugzilla PR for this. Before my patch we were
already inconsistent about it.
39 matches
Mail list logo
