http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
David Krauss potswa at mac dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22098|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45919
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
21:17:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 20 21:17:30 2010
New Revision: 165740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165740
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45907
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46106
Summary: Error in Manpage? -fstack-protection =
-fstack-protector(-all)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45919
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #2 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-20 21:30:22 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
so this would demonstrate the problem?
[snip example]
Yes, precisely.
I haven't checked whether this is valid
I looked at N3126 around
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
21:39:23 UTC ---
(you can edit an existing attachment to set the content type)
thanks for the nice minimal testcase, that's very useful
I *think* this is a dup of another
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36694
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46107
Summary: verify_loop_structure problem
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
22:46:45 UTC ---
I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
building on 32-bit I can reproduce a segfault
it doesn't build on 64-bit at all:
1) you can insert a pointer into an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
22:47:59 UTC ---
oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about the
claim that more than one process is involved - do you mean more than one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46107
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-20
23:18:48 UTC ---
Hi Johnathon,
(In reply to comment #5)
oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about the
claim that more than one process is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-20
23:26:33 UTC ---
What if implicitly-defined move-constructors go away again? If I understand
correctly that the bits we are missing are part of the recent work on
Unparalleled channel insights. Management strategies you can implement now.
Impeccable research. These are just a few of the topics highlighted in each
issue of CRN magazine, the voice of the channel for over 20 years. As a channel
professional, you are entitled to a FREE subscription today:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46108
Summary: constexpr ICE: streambuf_iterator.h:97
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46108
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
23:38:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 22101
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22101
pre-processed sources
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent at vinc17 dot org 2010-10-20
23:43:33 UTC ---
But there's something strange in the generated code: sometimes the fsqrt
instruction is used, sometimes call sqrtf is used (for the same sqrtf() call
in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
23:48:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Hi Johnathon,
(In reply to comment #5)
oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about
the
claim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
23:49:18 UTC ---
%.60f
You really should use hex float to see the diferences. I bet it is just the
final digit of the hex float that is different and only by one. This is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46106
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
23:52:29 UTC ---
gcc.1 is generated from doc/invoke.texi.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
00:45:19 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Oct 21 00:45:15 2010
New Revision: 165746
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165746
Log:
2010-10-20 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2010-10-21
02:00:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
SNIP
I can see some value in the warning you want, but it's not going to help if
you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46109
Summary: gcc-4.5.0 fails to build on
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46110
Summary: Precompiled headers: GCC fails to properly locate
include files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36503
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Strange astrange at ithinksw dot com 2010-10-21
04:39:36 UTC ---
I built ffmpeg for x86-64 with --disable-asm with the attached patch and the
regression tests failed. Reverting the patch fixes them. I saved the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46083
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-10-21 05:32:00 UTC
---
Honza, maybe your constructor re-ordering doesn't honor priority?
It should via the same logic as non-ELF ctor/dtor code does, but I will double
check.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #4 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-21 05:36:58 UTC
---
Adding an explicit A(A)=default; doesn't help, so I don't think this is
related to the implicit stuff. More like a missing piece of code telling the
compiler how to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46109
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43170
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yuri at tsoft
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46107
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo