On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:58 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to optimize memory address for x32. X32 runs in
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Geert Bosch bo...@adacore.com wrote:
On May 13, 2012, at 21:17, amyl...@spamcop.net wrote:
The expectation is wrap-around. Note that loop strenght reduction can
cause assumed wrap-around semantics in RTL for strictly conforming C input
where no such
Hello.
I'am developing an statement detector for c++ and I would like to
detect if an statement is expanded from macro.
Can I detect in ast tree if an statement is expanded code from macro?
Thanks.
Hi Alberto,
As far as I understand it you want to know if a statement was expanded
from a preprocessor macro, right?
This isn't possible. The preprocessor is a separate thing altogether and
I doubt any preprocessing information remains for the compiler proper to
deal with.
Cheers,
Paulo
This information is incorrect.
GCC tracks macro expansion information since GCC 4.7, and it has been
further improved and enabled by default in GCC 4.8. See the option
ftrack-macro-expansion and the interface located in
libcpp/include/line-map.h.
If you have trouble understanding the interface,
Thanks for correcting me Manuel.
I am just getting acquainted with GCC4.7, good to know that information
has been added.
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
On 14/05/12 10:07, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
This information is incorrect.
GCC tracks macro expansion information since GCC 4.7, and it has been
Został przekroczony limit przechowywania w skrzynce pocztowej.
Nie będą mogli wysyłać i odbierać nowe wiadomości do uaktualnieniem
e-mail kontyngent.
Skopiuj poniższy link i wypełnij formularz w celu aktualizacji konta.
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM, amyl...@spamcop.net wrote:
Quoting H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com:
What is the run-time result when overflow happens?
Assuming you use a 32 bit unsigned base address, and the space beyond 4G
is unmapped, you'll get a SEGV.
So, when used for load and store,
This looks good. I just want to check one thing with you. In point 5
you state that unresolved secondary symbols have a zero value. Are
you implying that unresolved secondary symbols should not result in a
link or load-time error? If that's the case, you should also make it
clear that a
Postovani,
Prvi centar koji svim pravnim i fizickim osobama omogucuje potpuno besplatno
prodaju svih vrsta nove i rabljene robe i usluga .
Svu svoju robu ili uslugu mozete odmah - vec danas potpuno besplatno prodavati
direktno iz svog poduzeca, obrta, gospodarstva po svojim cijenama
preko
On 05/12/12 06:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
* toplev.c (process_options): Fail for sjlj exceptions if the
target machine
has no casesi insn and no tablejump insn.
Looks good. How many targets have neither case/tablejump?
r~
I'm running into an ICE due to what looks like wrong register allocation, and
I'm trying to figure out where the problem lies. It shows up with today's GCC
(trunk). I haven't yet tried to narrow it down to a particular change.
It shows up in the pdp11 target, -O2. Not clear that this is
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/12/12 06:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
* toplev.c (process_options): Fail for sjlj exceptions if the
target machine
has no casesi insn and no tablejump insn.
Looks good. How many targets have
How about stating that the behavior of
STB_SECONDARY symbols in areas not specified
by this proposal matches that of STB_WEAK?
For example, we may not want to go into
runtime details when an unresolved-hence-zero-valued
secondary reference (type STT_FUNC) is hit at runtime.
In such instances
I've just merged cxx-conversion up to rev 187449.
Diego.
-Original Message-
From: generic-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:generic-
a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lowell, Randy
Sent: 14 May 2012 07:12 PM
To: generic-...@googlegroups.com; GCC Development; Binutils; GNU C
Library; Ansari, Zia
Subject: RE: Add STB_SECONDARY to gABI
This
Hi,
Support for the x32 psABI:
http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
is added in Linux kernel 3.4-rc1. X32 uses the ILP32 model for x86-64
instruction set with size of long and pointers == 4 bytes. X32 is
already supported in GCC 4.7.0 and binutils 2.22. I am now working
to integrate x32
On 05/14/2012 10:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
Support for the x32 psABI:
http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
is added in Linux kernel 3.4-rc1. X32 uses the ILP32 model for x86-64
instruction set with size of long and pointers == 4 bytes. X32 is
already supported in GCC 4.7.0 and
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/14/2012 10:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
Support for the x32 psABI:
http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
is added in Linux kernel 3.4-rc1. X32 uses the ILP32 model for x86-64
instruction set with size of long and
-Original Message-
From: generic-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:generic-
a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Suprateeka R Hegde
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:40 PM
To: generic-...@googlegroups.com; 'GCC Development'; 'Binutils'; 'GNU C
Library'; 'Ansari, Zia'
Subject: RE: Add
For rl78 there is a comment in gcc/config/rl78/rl78.h that suggests
there should be a tablejump insn, but it's not there.
The only unconditional branches rl78 has are immediate and
register-indirect, i.e. BR $label and BR AX.
This is unfortunate because rl78 is a #define DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO 0
On 05/14/12 12:59, DJ Delorie wrote:
For rl78 there is a comment in gcc/config/rl78/rl78.h that suggests
there should be a tablejump insn, but it's not there.
The only unconditional branches rl78 has are immediate and
register-indirect, i.e. BR $label and BR AX.
The later is certainly how
Hi,
currently, our software (www.lejos.org, build with a gcc 4.3.x based
arm-elf toolchain) manages to compare floats correctly most of the time.
But sometimes, the comparisons don't have the expected result.
Basically, comparisons behave non-deterministically.
We believe, that this is the
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Sven Köhler sven.koeh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
currently, our software (www.lejos.org, build with a gcc 4.3.x based
arm-elf toolchain) manages to compare floats correctly most of the time.
But sometimes, the comparisons don't have the expected result.
Quoting James Dennett james.denn...@gmail.com:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Sven Köhler sven.koeh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is gcc 4.3 still supported? Will there be release of gcc 4.3.7?
No. http://gcc.gnu.org/ describes GCC 4.5.x as the oldest maintained
release series.
Of course,
Quoting paul_kon...@dell.com:
I'm running into an ICE due to what looks like wrong register
allocation, and I'm trying to figure out where the problem lies. It
shows up with today's GCC (trunk). I haven't yet tried to narrow
it down to a particular change.
It shows up in the pdp11
Section 16.9 of the current gcc doc is as follows. It implies that the
fma pattern should/could be used on a machine that double rounds the
multiply add.
`fmam4'
Multiply operand 2 and operand 1, then add operand 3, storing the
result in operand 0. All operands must have mode m. This
Am 14.05.2012 23:01, schrieb James Dennett:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Sven Köhler sven.koeh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
currently, our software (www.lejos.org, build with a gcc 4.3.x based
arm-elf toolchain) manages to compare floats correctly most of the time.
But sometimes, the
This code warns (incorrectly, but that's a whole separate issue):
double foo(double a, double b)
{
bool option1_ok, option2_ok;
double option1, option2;
if (a == 0) {
option1_ok = false;
} else {
option1 = b;
option1_ok = true;
}
if (a == 1) {
option2_ok = false;
}
On 5/14/2012 6:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
This seems to defeat the purpose, and adding
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored -Wpragmas
is a little gross. How am I supposed to do this?
The gcc mailing list is for gcc development, not
quetions about the use of gcc, please address such
questions to
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
Should i change the section 16.9 doc to indicate that this pattern is
only to be used if the machine can do this with a single rounding?
Sure.
Ian
committed in revision 187494.
thanks.
On 05/14/2012 08:05 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Kenneth Zadeckzad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
Should i change the section 16.9 doc to indicate that this pattern is
only to be used if the machine can do this with a single rounding?
Sure.
Ian
Hi,
Why can't we replace function force_expr_to_var_cost directly with function
computation_cost in tree-ssa-loop-ivopt.c?
Actually I think it is inaccurate for the current recursive algorithm in
force_expr_to_var_cost to estimate expr cost. Instead computation_cost can
count some back-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53337
--- Comment #1 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-14 07:39:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 27397
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27397
preprocessed file (for those not having boost)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #34 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-14 07:41:02 UTC ---
I've created PR53337
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51564
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-05-14 08:12:44 UTC ---
On Fri, 11 May 2012, matt at use dot net wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51564
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53338
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53336
Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-05-14
08:51:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 27398
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27398
preprocessed source matmul_i8.i for powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53338
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-05-14 09:03:20
UTC ---
20% runtime regression in rnflow [1] happened in this timeframe, perhaps it
could be attributed to the patch, mentioned in Comment #2.
[1]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53338
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-05-14
09:21:41 UTC ---
20% runtime regression in rnflow [1] happened in this timeframe, perhaps it
could be attributed to the patch, mentioned in Comment #2.
This slowdown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53189
Andrew Stubbs ams at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53338
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
09:32:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
20% runtime regression in rnflow [1] happened in this timeframe, perhaps it
could be attributed to the patch, mentioned in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53334
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53340
Bug #: 53340
Summary: [4.8 Regression] rnflow.f90 is ~20% slower after
revision 187092
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53338
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-05-14
09:39:20 UTC ---
That patch was supposed to be a no-op on code generation.
I have opened pr53340.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53340
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-05-14
09:44:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27399
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27399
source cptrf2.f90 extracted from rnflow.f90
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53340
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-05-14
09:49:22 UTC ---
If I understand correctly the profiling, the slowdown comes from the first
inlined function minlst. The fast assembly is
L45:
movss (%r10),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
10:02:12 UTC ---
Can you try
Index: gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53341
Bug #: 53341
Summary: overloaded operator delete(void *) appear in object
file even when not directly used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53340
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-05-14
10:52:28 UTC ---
Can we avoid deriving from unary_function and binary_function, no big deal as
an implementation detail, but are deprecated in C++11, I would rather
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53336
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=53336
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-05-14
10:59:15 UTC ---
I really do believe that we want to leave the stuff in stl_function.h alone and
have something very neat in namespace __detail, in hashtable_policy.h,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52362
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
11:14:28 UTC ---
When there are many files to link, gnatlink passes a file containing the file
names, instead of the file names directly, on the GCC link line. There is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37864
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52362
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
11:22:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
When there are many files to link, gnatlink passes a file containing the file
names, instead of the file names directly, on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52494
--- Comment #2 from Andris Pavenis andris.pavenis at iki dot fi 2012-05-14
11:30:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27400
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27400
Add missing sub-package to s-taprop-dummy.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53340
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
11:37:02 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 14 11:36:58 2012
New Revision: 187457
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187457
Log:
2012-05-14 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53340
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53241
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
Bug #: 53342
Summary: [4.8 Regression] rnflow.f90 is ~5% slower after
revision 187340
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
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=53342
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-05-14
12:32:26 UTC ---
Can you try
From a clean bootstrap at revision 187401, updating gcc and rebuilding
libgfortran has succeeded for 187402 with the patch in comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343
Bug #: 53343
Summary: [4.8 regression] options.c:9944:1: error: no previous
prototype for 'common_handle_option_auto' broke
bootstrap on sparc64-linux
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
--- Comment #32 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
12:56:09 UTC ---
Seems like another job for c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53229
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-05-14
13:12:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27402
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27402
Draft
Something like this, very lightly tested so far.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53337
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
13:30:39 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Mon May 14 13:30:32 2012
New Revision: 187462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187462
Log:
2012-05-14 Manuel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-*-* |powerpc64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53344
Bug #: 53344
Summary: Dont' emit an assembler warning when assembling 3-byte
symbols
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53344
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53337
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-14 14:08:04 UTC ---
I will try the trunk go binutils.
Still I confirm that this warning does not appear at all (in real-life code,
not just in the attached test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52494
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53345
Bug #: 53345
Summary: some OPT_Wformat is enabled by default
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53345
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53345
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
15:00:32 UTC ---
A relatively simple fix is a new option OPT_Wformat_pedantic that is enabled by
default. Another option is to enable Wformat by default. That doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
15:01:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 14 15:01:22 2012
New Revision: 187466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187466
Log:
2012-05-14 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53331
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
Bug #: 53346
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Bad vectorization in the proc
cptrf2 of rnflow.f90
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53347
Bug #: 53347
Summary: Duplicated redundant condition in compare-elim.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53344
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
15:48:15 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon May 14 15:47:52 2012
New Revision: 187470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187470
Log:
PR target/53344
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53344
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52700
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
16:07:32 UTC ---
I agree it should be better, but the analogy isn't great: new foo requires
foo to be a type, delete foo requires foo to be a variable.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
16:42:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Like, sorry about my naivete, by adding a cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement
or
something right after the error message?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51394
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.thompson at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53329
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
16:45:32 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon May 14 16:45:16 2012
New Revision: 187472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187472
Log:
2012-05-14 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51055
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-14
16:45:31 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon May 14 16:45:16 2012
New Revision: 187472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187472
Log:
2012-05-14 Tobias Burnus
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
