Hi All,
For anyone interested, the LLVM project just released LLVM 2.8. Among other
things it includes major updates to the DragonEgg GCC plugin. Other major
improvements include a new debugger (LLDB), a new C++ standard library
(libc++), and Clang C++ support being feature complete and very
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/06 00:19:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:40:11PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
yes, but this could be a new PIC mode that uses a new better
PIC mode for everything. Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
Gabriel Paubert paub...@iram.es wrote on 2010/10/06 10:15:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
I really wish mrelocatable is added to all archs. The normal ELF relocs
are too big to fit well in u-boot.
Every architecture is different and requires a thoughtful approach to
determine the best way to handle these issues for that
Dear all,
When porting GCC on xc16x, I met a problem with a constant string. The
following is the C code:
#include stdio.h
int main () {
printf (c\n);
}
And the following is the generated assembly:
.xc16x
.section .rodata
.LC0:
.ascii c\0
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0700, Phung Nguyen wrote:
When porting GCC on xc16x, I met a problem with a constant string. The
following is the C code:
#include stdio.h
int main () {
printf (c\n);
}
And the following is the generated assembly:
.xc16x
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
I really wish mrelocatable is added to all archs. The normal ELF relocs
are too big to fit well in u-boot.
Every architecture is different and requires a thoughtful approach to
How can I turn this optimization off?
Phung
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0700, Phung Nguyen wrote:
When porting GCC on xc16x, I met a problem with a constant string. The
following is the C code:
#include stdio.h
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Phung Nguyen nhph...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I turn this optimization off?
Use -fno-builtin-printf.
Richard.
Phung
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0700, Phung Nguyen wrote:
When
On 10/6/2010 5:43 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Phung Nguyennhph...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I turn this optimization off?
Use -fno-builtin-printf.
I'm curious, it's obviously a correct optimization, so why
would you want to turn if off?
On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 10/6/2010 5:43 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Phung Nguyennhph...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I turn this optimization off?
Use -fno-builtin-printf.
I'm curious, it's obviously a correct optimization, so why
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
This is just a friendly letter. There probably will not be another GCC
update from the Sunfreeware site ( which is still showing 3.4.6 ) for a
long time now that Oracle has
FYI, in case anyone else runs into this and comes here looking for
information: a fix is on the way for the multiple definitions of various
include-path-related things problem currently breaking bootstrap on Cygwin.
Hope to have it working again within the next few hours.
cheers,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45838
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
07:47:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 6 07:47:28 2010
New Revision: 165012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165012
Log:
PR middle-end/45838
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45901
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
07:49:54 UTC ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Oct 6 07:49:52 2010
New Revision: 165014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165014
Log:
2010-10-06 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45901
Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45893
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45897
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45903
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-10-06 10:03:48
UTC ---
The first example should actually be:
f64:
mov al, DWORD PTR [esp+5]
add al, DWORD PTR [esp+13]
ret
This happens to other operators, not just plus:
uint8_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45909
Summary: f951.exe: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45908
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45909
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45903
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45905
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||samsonluk at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45907
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
10:29:58 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 6 10:29:55 2010
New Revision: 165020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165020
Log:
2010-10-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45894
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45908
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
10:37:19 UTC ---
The second testcase is a different issue which can be reduced to:
class block {
auto f() const - decltype(i);
int i;
};
name lookup in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975
--- Comment #31 from Joaquín M López Muñoz joaquin at tid dot es 2010-10-06
11:10:12 UTC ---
Paolo,
I've read the minutes and seems no strong consensus
was reached. I think it'd be useful if the issue can
be reopened, at least for informative
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45904
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-10-06
11:51:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
GCC Bugzilla is currently sending emails with From: address
gcc-bugzilla-nore...@gcc.gnu.org.
I don't know where you see that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45904
--- Comment #3 from Frank Ch. Eigler fche at redhat dot com 2010-10-06
13:03:48 UTC ---
I don't know where you see that. All emails I get from GCC Bugzilla have and
always had the From: field set to gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org.
Federic, yesterday
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45903
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45904
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-10-06
13:14:03 UTC ---
Le 06. 10. 10 15:04, fche at redhat dot com a écrit :
Federic, yesterday we did experiment with an alternative setting, after
bounces started being
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45908
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45889
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
13:29:47 UTC ---
This fixes it. I will commit after a full regression test. Earlier when I
added a scan through the OP's for parens I missed this change, so we were
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45143
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
13:51:22 UTC ---
As an update on this, when I finish melding of runtime and compile time format
checking into a common set of routines, this bug will be finished.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45908
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
14:00:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I think that's wrong because the trailing-return-type follows the function's
declarator-id, so [basic.lookup.unqual]p8 applies, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45394
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
14:25:11 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Oct 6 14:25:04 2010
New Revision: 165030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165030
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45394
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45908
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
14:35:33 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Oct 6 14:35:25 2010
New Revision: 165031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165031
Log:
PR c++/45908
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45908
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
14:45:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
But paragraph 7 also applies (name used in a class outside a member function
body), so the name needs to be declared before its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45910
Summary: compiler won't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45910
--- Comment #1 from Larry lawrencetinsley at hotmail dot com 2010-10-06
15:04:59 UTC ---
I also compiled with the command gcc test.f95 -o test.exe
and saw mentioned somewhere gcc -Wall
and got the same error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45910
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45699
--- Comment #5 from bredelin at ucla dot edu 2010-10-06 15:46:08 UTC ---
This bug still existed as of Oct 4, 2010.
gcc version 4.6.0 20101004 (experimental) [trunk revision 164952] (Ubuntu
20101004-0ubuntu1)
After this bug is fixed, I'll be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
--- Comment #2 from Samson Luk samsonluk at gmail dot com 2010-10-06 15:57:13
UTC ---
I know very little about cross-compilation, but something seems badly wrong
with the setup you are using: the 4.5.1 C++ front-end definitely implements
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
16:14:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
make[4]: Entering directory
`/home/samson/src/gccB451/arm-none-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/src'
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag CXX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12990
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidm at hpl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18749
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12990
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12990
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33721
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45911
Summary: bugzilla: Changing status to assigned no longer
auto-adjusts the assign-to field
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45912
Summary: [4.6 regression] Patch for PR tree-optimization/44972
caused 2500+ FAILs on Solaris 2/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-06
16:50:34 UTC ---
Just to expand a little bit on what Jon said: you are getting an error on
__is_trivial, which is a C++ front-end builtin available in 4.5.x and not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45863
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06 17:01:17 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Oct 6 17:01:11 2010
New Revision: 165055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165055
Log:
PR libstdc++/45863
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45911
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
17:01:37 UTC ---
Yes, I reported this in the bugzilla-test instance.
It would be useful to restore the accept bug button on UNCONFIRMED and NEW
bugs which sets Status=ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45912
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23101
Nate nate at ucar dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nate at ucar dot edu
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45908
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
17:37:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
re comment 2, is 4.5 correct to use a non-const access path to v.begin() in
the
trailing-return-type?
Yes. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
--- Comment #5 from Samson Luk samsonluk at gmail dot com 2010-10-06 17:56:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Now I understand... seems to me a chicken and egg problem... I am already using
the latest Cross Toolchain and it only came with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-06
17:58:26 UTC ---
Only 4.5.x can build the 4.5.x C++ runtime library.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45856
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
18:33:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
It seems that
gcc 4.5.x was build successfully, do you mean I have to make use of the new
build gcc to build the c++ 4.5.x?
That
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45913
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in insn_default_length, at
config/i386/i386.md:584 with -fselective-scheduling2
-fsel-sched-pipelining
-fsel-sched-pipelining-outer-loops
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36732
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45914
Summary: Typo in gcc/configure.ac
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-10-06 18:53:27 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, samsonluk at gmail dot com wrote:
Now I understand... seems to me a chicken and egg problem... I am already
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43839
--- Comment #12 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
18:54:31 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Wed Oct 6 18:54:14 2010
New Revision: 165061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165061
Log:
2010-10-06 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45856
--- Comment #7 from Michael Eager eager at eagercon dot com 2010-10-06
18:58:15 UTC ---
Attached patches should correct test case failures. Tested on x86_64 and x86.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45915
Summary: Check for gnu_unique_object in ld.so in
gcc/configure.ac is broken for non-glibc ldd
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43715
--- Comment #10 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
19:09:14 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Wed Oct 6 19:09:10 2010
New Revision: 165062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165062
Log:
2010-10-06 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42070
--- Comment #6 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
19:22:40 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Wed Oct 6 19:22:37 2010
New Revision: 165063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165063
Log:
2010-10-06 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45916
Summary: [4.6 regression] ICE in match_procedure_in_type, at
fortran/decl.c:7921
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42487
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
19:28:42 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Wed Oct 6 19:28:40 2010
New Revision: 165064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165064
Log:
2010-10-06 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45916
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
19:29:01 UTC ---
regressing commit http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=165026
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33097
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43839
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Murav'jov muravev at yandex dot ru 2010-10-06
19:43:30 UTC ---
I've come across another weird warning emission in g++ 4.4:
$ cat test.cc
#include new
struct interface_type {
virtual interface_type* clone(void*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43839
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.1 |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42070
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45916
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
20:45:53 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
module m_sort
implicit none
type, abstract :: sort_t
contains
generic :: operator(.gt.) = gt_cmp
procedure(gt_cmp), deferred
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45916
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-10-06 20:56:56 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, muravev at yandex dot ru wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Murav'jov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45916
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=45917
Summary: Friend of friend is allowed the access to the private
type through the template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45906
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45917
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45918
Summary: Lack of warning on meaningless unsigned to zero
comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45917
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45919
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in fold_ctor_reference
(tree-ssa-ccp.c:1527) at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45889
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
22:38:36 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Oct 6 22:38:30 2010
New Revision: 165068
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165068
Log:
2010-10-06 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45889
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-06
22:49:30 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Oct 6 22:49:28 2010
New Revision: 165069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165069
Log:
2010-10-06 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45889
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45918
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45920
Summary: Building gcc: flags passed during configure step not
used everywhere
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
