On 3 February 2012 21:48, Vincent Lefevre vincent+...@vinc17.org wrote:
On 2012-02-03 17:44:21 +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
For the glibc, I've finally reported a bug here:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13658
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Nenad Vukicevic ne...@intrepid.com writes:
Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the
following linking problem (no special configure switches):
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file
On 02/09/2012 10:20 AM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
From what I can see, on x86_64, the hardware fsin(x) is more accurate
than the hardware fsincos(x).
As you gradually increase the size of X from 0 to 10e22, fsincos(x)
diverges from the correct accurate value quicker than fsin(x) does.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/09/2012 10:20 AM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
From what I can see, on x86_64, the hardware fsin(x) is more accurate
than the hardware fsincos(x).
As you gradually increase the size of X from 0 to 10e22, fsincos(x)
Hi,
it has been quiet around Graphite for a while and I think it is more
than time to give an update on Graphite.
== The Status of Graphite ==
Graphite has been around for a while in GCC. During this time a lot of
people tested Graphite and Sebastian fixed many bugs. As of today the
On 2/9/2012 5:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/09/2012 10:20 AM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
From what I can see, on x86_64, the hardware fsin(x) is more accurate
than the hardware fsincos(x).
As you gradually increase
On 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it's
certainly possible to do better in the context of SSE, but gcc doesn't
know anything about the quality of math
2012/2/9 Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com:
On 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it's
certainly possible to do better in the context of SSE, but gcc doesn't
know
On 02/09/2012 02:51 PM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
2012/2/9 Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com:
On 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it's
certainly possible to
On Feb 9, 2012, at 08:46, Andrew Haley wrote:
n 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it's
certainly possible to do better in the context of SSE, but gcc
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Geert Bosch bo...@adacore.com wrote:
On Feb 9, 2012, at 08:46, Andrew Haley wrote:
n 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it's
On 02/09/2012 03:28 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - do you have an idea what routines we can start off with to get
a full C99 set of routines for float, double and long double? The last
time I was exploring the idea again I was looking at the BSD libm.
I'd start with INRIA's crlibm.
Andrew.
On 9 February 2012 14:51, James Courtier-Dutton james.dut...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/9 Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com:
On 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it's
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/09/2012 03:28 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - do you have an idea what routines we can start off with to get
a full C99 set of routines for float, double and long double? The last
time I was exploring the idea again I was looking at the
On 02/09/2012 03:56 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/09/2012 03:28 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - do you have an idea what routines we can start off with to get
a full C99 set of routines for float, double and long double? The last
time I was
On 02/09/2012 03:55 PM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
Results for x86_64
gcc -g -O0 -c -o sincos1.o sincos1.c
gcc -static -g -o sincos1 sincos1.o -lm
./sincos1
sin = -8.52200849767188795e-01(uses xmm register intructions)
sinl = 0.46261304076460176 (uses fprem and fsin)
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/09/2012 03:56 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/09/2012 03:28 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - do you have an idea what routines we can start off with to get
a full C99 set of
On 02/09/2012 03:59 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/09/2012 03:56 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/09/2012 03:28 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So - do you have an idea what routines
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
Results when compiled for 32bit x86.
gcc -m32 -g -O0 -c -o sincos1.o sincos1.c
gcc -m32 -static -g -o sincos1 sincos1.o -lm
./sincos1
sin = 4.62613040764601746e-01
sinl = 0.46261304076460176
sincos = 4.62613040764601746e-01
sincosl =
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
So - do you have an idea what routines we can start off with to get
a full C99 set of routines for float, double and long double? The
last time I was exploring the idea again I was looking at the BSD
libm.
I'd start with INRIA's crlibm.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
Given the fact that GCC already needs to know pretty much everything
about these functions for optimizations and constant folding, and is
in the best situation to choose specific implementations (-ffast-math
or not, -frounding-math or not,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
Okay, but the crlibm algorithms could be extended to long
doubles and, presumably, floats. Where's Vincent Lefevre
when you need him? :-)
The crlibm approach, involving exhaustive searches for worst cases for
directed rounding, could as I understand
On Feb 9, 2012, at 10:28, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yes, definitely! OTOH last time I added the toplevel libgcc-math directory
and populated it with sources from glibc RMS objected violently and I had
to remove it again. So we at least need to find a different source of
math routines to start
On 02/09/2012 04:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
My view is that we should have a GNU libm project whose purpose is not
to install a library directly but to provide functions for use in other
projects (much like gnulib, but the functions could presume that they were
being built with recent
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Geert Bosch wrote:
While I think it would be great if there were a suitable
GNU libm project that we could directly use, this seems to only
make sense if this could be based on the current glibc math
library. As far as I understand, it is unlikely that we
No, that's not
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/09/2012 04:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
My view is that we should have a GNU libm project whose purpose is not
to install a library directly but to provide functions for use in other
projects (much like gnulib, but the functions could
On 02/09/2012 06:00 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/09/2012 04:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
My view is that we should have a GNU libm project whose purpose is not
to install a library directly but to provide functions for use in other
projects
On 09.02.2012 07:33, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Nenad Vukicevicne...@intrepid.com writes:
Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the
following linking problem (no special configure switches):
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/ld:
Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the
following linking problem (no special configure switches):
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find crti.o: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc
On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:55, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
No, that's not the case. Rather, the point would be that both GCC's
library and glibc's end up being based on the new GNU project (which might
take some code from glibc and some from elsewhere - and quite possibly
write some from scratch,
On 02/09/2012 07:16 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Yes. Debian moved everything for some reason. It's a problem that must
be addressed somehow before gcc 4.7 is released.
It's extremely unfortunate that this will make it impossible to build
older releases of gcc on newer Debian installations.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
No, the point of the separate project would be to be used by both glibc
and GCC (and possibly other GNU projects such as GSL) - because
cooperation among the various projects wanting such functions is the right
way to do things.
Well, yes, but
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Geert Bosch wrote:
I don't agree having such a libm is the ultimate goal. It could be
a first step along the way, addressing correctness issues. This
Indeed, I think having it as a first step makes sense - with subsequent
development done in that context.
would be great
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Nenad Vukicevic ne...@intrepid.com writes:
Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the
following linking problem (no special configure switches):
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/ld:
On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
== Who will do all the work? ==
After reading all the open projects you may wander who will do all the
work? Unfortunately Sebastian switched jobs at the end of 2011, such
that we lost one full time contributor. Furthermore, I am myself also
not
I'm porting gcc 4.6.2 to a 16 bit CPU that has four GP registers. I've
chosen to allocate R3 as the frame pointer when one is needed.
In line with GCC Internals info on FIXED_REGISTERS (except on machines
where that can be used as a general register when no frame pointer is
needed) I have not
On 02/09/2012 11:05 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
== Who will do all the work? ==
After reading all the open projects you may wander who will do all the
work? Unfortunately Sebastian switched jobs at the end of 2011, such
that we lost one full time
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20120209 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20120209/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 02/09/2012 11:37 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:05 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
== Who will do all the work? ==
After reading all the open projects you may wander who will do all the
work? Unfortunately Sebastian switched jobs at
Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu writes:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Nenad Vukicevic ne...@intrepid.com writes:
Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the
following linking problem (no special configure switches):
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu writes:
The reason, for the record, is because Debian wants to be able to
support multiarch with more than two architectures. The /lib32
vs. /lib64 distinction doesn't allow one to use the same underlying
machinery to
Hi All,
I am a new joinee to this group and a C/C++ developer for around 2
yrs. What interest me most is gcc / gcov combination output. It list
the code execution details.
Is there a possibility that gcc build binaries can print file
name:line number code of the code it is executing at run time.
On 12-02-09 5:54 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:37 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:05 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
== Who will do all the work? ==
After reading all the open projects you may wander who will do all the
work?
I am pleased to announce that GCC finally has three
docstring relicensing maintainers:
Joseph S. Myers
Diego Novillo
Gerald Pfeifer
This makes it possible to relicense docstrings between the GPL and
GFDL. For legal reasons this has to be approved for every change, and
these three
On 02/10/2012 01:58 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 12-02-09 5:54 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:37 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:05 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
== Who will do all the work? ==
After reading all the open
I'd like to explain the rules that apply to this relicensing:
* If any text is to be licensed under both the GPL and the GFDL, there
must be copies under both licenses checked in. There may be a tool that
helps propagate changes from one copy to the other. This is the scheme we
already have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52181
Bug #: 52181
Summary: [4.7 Regression] merge_decls doesn't handle
DECL_USER_ALIGN properly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52181
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #26 from Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
08:45:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 26620
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26620
complete transition to __atomic, modulo config
... and for config, plan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52181
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
09:07:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 26621
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26621
gcc47-pr52181.patch
Untested fix. The testcase shows that the C++ FE has a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
09:16:11 UTC ---
Nice. Now that we have an atomic load we can also do:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h
-std=c99
-pedantic
stdin:1:34: warning: ISO C99 doesn’t support unnamed structs/unions
[-pedantic]
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.6.3 20120209 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20120209 (experimental)
plus
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20120209 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.5.4 20120209 (prerelease)
print
stdin:1:34
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52168
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51867
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09 09:37:43 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Feb 9 09:37:37 2012
New Revision: 184037
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184037
Log:
PR target/51867
* builtins.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52183
Bug #: 52183
Summary: Redeclaration of __this in lambda inside template
member function when calling static class function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
10:10:41 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Feb 9 10:10:36 2012
New Revision: 184038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184038
Log:
2012-02-09 Andrey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
10:17:59 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Feb 9 10:17:55 2012
New Revision: 184040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184040
Log:
2012-02-09 Andrey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52183
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
11:35:27 UTC ---
Clang++ 3.0 warns with -Wuninitialized
/tmp/webcompile/_15338_0.cc:7:5: warning: variable 'a' is uninitialized when
used within its own initialization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52165
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
11:41:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 11:41:25 2012
New Revision: 184042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184042
Log:
PR debug/52165
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
12:13:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 12:13:18 2012
New Revision: 184043
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184043
Log:
PR fortran/32380
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52168
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
12:19:38 UTC ---
NetBSD PR http://gnats.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=45955
My analysis of the problem was incorrect and it looks as though a fix would be
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52168
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
12:24:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
netbsd does too (but I can't test that until later today)
or rather, it doesn't ignore the newline, but it does produce the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52175
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52177
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=52165
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
13:03:25 UTC ---
For
extern void abort (void);
struct S { int i; };
struct S arr[32];
volatile int count = 0;
struct S __attribute__((noinline))
incr (void)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
14:46:07 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:46:02 2012
New Revision: 184045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184045
Log:
gcc/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
14:56:03 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:55:57 2012
New Revision: 184046
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184046
Log:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
14:59:51 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:59:46 2012
New Revision: 184047
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184047
Log:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52179
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-02-09
15:05:50 UTC ---
All of these crashes appear in the section in the GC_mark_from subroutine of
mark.c commented as...
/* Try to prefetch the next pointer to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51752
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
16:23:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 26622
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26622
proposed (untested) patch
This is a first stab at the problem. It is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52184
Bug #: 52184
Summary: Wrong object initialization in
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52185
Bug #: 52185
Summary: Const member function may change the object for which
the function is called.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52184
--- Comment #1 from Kamil kamil.holubicki at gmail dot com 2012-02-09
16:44:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 26623
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26623
Short example demonstrating problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51752
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
16:43:40 UTC ---
But isn't with
__transaction_atomic
{
for (i = 0; i 10; i++)
if (x[i])
x[i] += data;
}
and
__transaction_atomic {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52185
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
16:44:20 UTC ---
Comeau C++ does not error out either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52184
--- Comment #2 from Kamil kamil.holubicki at gmail dot com 2012-02-09
16:46:55 UTC ---
Base virtual class object is corrupted when explicitly called auto generated
constructor from derived class inititalization list.
Attached file demonstrates
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51929
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52184
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
16:55:12 UTC ---
4.7 prints 8, agreeing with other compilers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51929
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2012-02-09 16:55:28
UTC ---
Yes, I marked this PR as a regression after adding the second testcase, along
with modifying the summary.
The way it behaves in 4.6 is described in the Tested
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #18 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2012-02-09 16:59:19 UTC
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483#c2
shows that function calling of object before constructor is bad idea and must
be strongly forbidden.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52185
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52176
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:02:36 UTC ---
gfortran generates the following code (original dump). I think, it's
if ((real(kind=4)[0:] * restrict) __result-data == 0B) goto L.17;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:04:06 UTC ---
Everyone knows it's a bad idea, and everyone agrees there should be a warning.
Stop going on about it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52186
Bug #: 52186
Summary: array out of bounds error when accessing last byte of
a struct via char ptr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52186
--- Comment #1 from Alex Tomlinson alex at aivor dot com 2012-02-09 17:10:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 26625
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26625
output of -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52186
--- Comment #2 from Alex Tomlinson alex at aivor dot com 2012-02-09 17:11:03
UTC ---
Created attachment 26626
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26626
output of -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52185
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:11:40 UTC ---
[class.this] says, In a const member function, the object for which the
function is called is accessed through a const access path;
That doesn't mean the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52186
--- Comment #3 from Alex Tomlinson alex at aivor dot com 2012-02-09 17:12:39
UTC ---
Created attachment 26627
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26627
stdout/stderr of gcc with -v -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51360
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:15:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 17:15:29 2012
New Revision: 184049
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184049
Log:
Backported from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48306
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:16:27 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 17:16:19 2012
New Revision: 184050
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184050
Log:
Backported from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51669
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:17:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 17:17:36 2012
New Revision: 184051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184051
Log:
Backported from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:18:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 17:18:42 2012
New Revision: 184052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184052
Log:
Backported from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:17:03 UTC ---
a = b
The problem is that the LHS is REAL(4) while the RHS is REAL(8). Thus, the
expression is not variable A = variable B but
variable A =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44777
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09
17:20:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 17:20:09 2012
New Revision: 184053
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184053
Log:
Backported from
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
