Hi,
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:12:17PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any hard
requirements
This is the beta release of binutils 2.23.51.0.6 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2012 1123 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
I would like you to respond to
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
In graphds.h, struct graph has a field htab_t indices.
As near as I can tell, it is completely unused. It builds
and tests fine with the field #if'd out.
Shall I remove the field?
Sure. Please make sure to have
On 11/25/12 23:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
You essentially need a fix-up pass just before the end of compilation
(machine-dependent reorg, if memory serves me right) to space instructions
consuming values from CPRs from the CALL_INSNS that set those CPRs. I.e.,
for the 99% of compilation you
On 11/26/2012 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
On 11/26/2012 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say the most pragmatic solution is to stick with
Marketing loves high numbers after all!
If you truly think this way, we're going to have to revoke your hacker's
license ;-)
On 27/11/2012, at 4:34 AM, Greg McGary wrote:
On 11/25/12 23:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
You essentially need a fix-up pass just before the end of compilation
(machine-dependent reorg, if memory serves me right) to space instructions
consuming values from CPRs from the CALL_INSNS that set
On 11/23/12, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/22/2012 01:18 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
I have found that tree-flow.h implements iteration over htab_t,
while there is no current facility to do that with hash_table.
Unfortunately, the specific form does not match the standard
I have run into a problem with both 4.6.1 and 4.7.2 of the gcc compiler
handling type short. Sizeof(unsigned short) returns a length of 2 as
expected, but when I use a union of a character buffer and some fields
including a unsigned short the value returned is 2 bytes but the buffer
pointer
On Nov 26, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Bill Beech (NJ7P) wrote:
I have run into a problem with both 4.6.1 and 4.7.2 of the gcc compiler
handling type short. Sizeof(unsigned short) returns a length of 2 as
expected, but when I use a union of a character buffer and some fields
including a unsigned
Richard,
I spent a good part of the afternoon talking to Mike about this. He is
on the c++ standards committee and is a much more seasoned c++
programmer than I am.
He convinced me that with a large amount of engineering and c++
foolishness that it was indeed possible to get your proposal
On 27/11/2012, at 4:51 PM, ETANI NORIKO wrote:
Dear Sirs,
I am researching the status quo of embedded Linux and find out your website
of Embedded Linux Conference 2013. We are looking for the engineer at a
distributor side in order to consult our implementation issues and improve
On 11/26/12 12:46, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
I wonder if kludgy fixups refers to the dummy-instruction solution I
mentioned above. The complete dependence graph is a myth. You cannot have a
complete dependence graph for a function -- scheduler works on DAG regions
(and I doubt it will ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55468
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
09:19:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 26 09:19:30 2012
New Revision: 193806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193806
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
09:47:18 UTC ---
A milestone of 3.0.x???
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55245
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
09:49:23 UTC ---
I'd say it should be the FE's responsibility to layout all needed types, so it
should be done either somewhere when the type ARRAY_REF is created or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55428
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Kasberger kasberger at heidenhain dot de
2012-11-26 09:51:50 UTC ---
I found this example on
geeksforgeeks.org/forum/topic/c-structure-size-with-empty-bitfield
#define offset(a,b) (size_t)a*)(0))-b))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
10:23:54 UTC ---
Didn't help. The following should work. The crucial part is free_line. At a
glance free_saved(dtp) (here and in comment 2) seems also to be sensible,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41233
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54881
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26 10:30:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Nov 26 10:30:12 2012
New Revision: 193809
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193809
Log:
2012-11-26 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54881
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55110
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26 11:16:35 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Nov 26 11:16:31 2012
New Revision: 193811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193811
Log:
2012-11-26 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
11:26:16 UTC ---
The warning noticed by Jon seems a latent issue unrelated to bitfields and due
to the fact to for scoped enums, the underlying type, if not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
11:32:15 UTC ---
Or maybe it should *always* run, if the point is diagnostics: after all even if
the type is fixed why not adding to its representation the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
11:36:56 UTC ---
For example, consider this variant of the PR53661 situation:
enum class Code {
SUCCESS = 0
};
Code a;
short r[] = {a};
we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
11:46:46 UTC ---
That narrowing warning seems right to me, the enum variable could have a value
out of range of short:
Code a = static_castCode(SHRT_MAX+1);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
11:50:43 UTC ---
The difference from PR 53661 is that the underlying type of a scoped
enumeration is fixed, so its values are the values of (in this case) int. In PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
12:00:17 UTC ---
But something still seems wrong to me. Why warning depending on whether 'class'
is there for the following:
enum /*class*/ Code {
SUCCESS =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
12:05:21 UTC ---
Anyway, the latent issue is of course with fixed underlying types: if in that
case we don't care about warning more, this issue is already fixed,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
12:22:49 UTC ---
And to further clarify wrt your specific Comment 11, Jon, for:
#include limits.h
enum Code {
SUCCESS = 0
};
Code a =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
12:24:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Another problem with revision 191466 is we lost
debug info on cl_options. With revision 191465,
I got
(gdb)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
12:43:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
we *error* out anyway, isn't that we are only emitting a warning and only when
we are assigning the SHRT_MAX + 1.
But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-11-26 12:45:23 UTC
---
/export/project/git/gcc-regression-bootstrap/master/191466/bld/gcc/cc1...done.
(gdb) whatis global_options
type = data variable, no debug info
(gdb)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
12:56:34 UTC ---
Clang doesn't warn for the code in comment 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
13:00:08 UTC ---
Well, then we should double check whether it warns at all when bitfields are
not involved, because I don't see anything bitfield-specific about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
13:27:45 UTC ---
Uhm, actually, when the underlying type is unscoped and we already accept the
code, we warn exactly in the same way. I'm not sure if this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-26 13:29:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
This means that somewhere there is a cl_option definition that may prevail
that has size 1. lto_symtab_resolve_symbols is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55470
Bug #: 55470
Summary: Enable both ld and gold in gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
13:39:17 UTC ---
I mean, with the grokbitfield tweak we obtain a behavior for Comment #1 which
in terms of warnings it's just a variant of Comment #13: if we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-26
14:00:37 UTC ---
Patchlet in Comment #6 passes testing for me.
As I tried clumsily to explain, I don't think it's consistent to avoid the
warning for Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
14:26:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:26:07 2012
New Revision: 193816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193816
Log:
2012-11-26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
14:26:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:26:07 2012
New Revision: 193816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193816
Log:
2012-11-26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54976
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
14:26:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:26:07 2012
New Revision: 193816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193816
Log:
2012-11-26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
14:29:59 UTC ---
Patch posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02095.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
14:37:48 UTC ---
I disagree. You can't see optimized out for aggregate var in memory which
actually has been allocated on the stack, VTA doesn't value track those (and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
14:40:20 UTC ---
I think naming the warning would make sense, so it can be disabled by people
who want to use scoped enums with bit-fields
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-26 14:58:12 UTC ---
On 11/26/2012 4:47 AM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
A milestone of 3.0.x??
It seems I did this while updating the Last reconfirmed date. As I
understand it,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
15:57:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
/export/project/git/gcc-regression-bootstrap/master/191466/bld/gcc/cc1...done.
(gdb) whatis global_options
type =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-26 16:36:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Hmm, I suppose this is because we no longer merge symbols that are not part
of
symtab, but
used only for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
16:36:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 28778
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28778
gcc48-pr52650.patch
P1 for an error-recovery bug sounds way too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-26 16:43:18 UTC ---
On 11/26/2012 11:36 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
P1 for an error-recovery bug sounds way too high, those should be P4-ish.
I just restored the previous
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #6 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26 16:46:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 28779
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28779
Patch to use libbacktrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26 17:08:20 UTC ---
Note: The same behavior occurs with all gfortran versions I tried (4.3, 4.6,
4.7 and trunk).
The check which rejects it is in gfc_verify_binding_labels
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #5 from Fran Martinez Fadrique fmartinez at gmv dot com
2012-11-26 17:36:04 UTC ---
I have also tried with ekopath and g95 and both take it without a diagnostic.
I have been checking section 15.4 of the ISO standard and I have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55277
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
18:08:50 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:08:44 2012
New Revision: 193824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193824
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Bug #: 55471
Summary: c++ mutex does not work as expected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55245
--- Comment #7 from Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
18:35:43 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:35:38 2012
New Revision: 193825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193825
Log:
Google ref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
18:46:25 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:46:12 2012
New Revision: 193826
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193826
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
gustavo gustavo at atc dot ugr.es changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||fedora 17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
19:23:22 UTC ---
If you change the code to join the threads instead of leaving them running when
the program exits then the output is correct.
#include iostream
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
19:24:38 UTC ---
Almost certainly what happens is that the mutex m gets destroyed when returning
from main, but there are threads still using it and so they can no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32647
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||55277
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54630
--- Comment #19 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-11-26 19:44:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Ian,
You can also add linker options via the configure options
--with-stage1-ldflags
and --with-boot-ldflags, q.v.
So, I read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55472
Bug #: 55472
Summary: Linker cannot find lambda symbol
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
gustavo gustavo at atc dot ugr.es changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55472
--- Comment #1 from walker_643 at yahoo dot com 2012-11-26 19:48:15 UTC ---
I believe the code to be valid C++11, and, indeed it does compile, link, and
run on gcc 4.5 (as seen here http://ideone.com/VvFuMs ), but no GCC versions
4.7 - 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
Juno Krahn juno.krahn at nih dot gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juno.krahn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55473
Bug #: 55473
Summary: quadmath.h should have extern C for C++ users
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #8 from Juno Krahn juno.krahn at nih dot gov 2012-11-26 19:55:11
UTC ---
Also, I should have mentioned that multiple interface specs used to work in Gnu
Fortran, and it still works in current Intel, Sun and Open64 Fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #10 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de 2012-11-26 20:24:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Well, then somebody should also complain to NAG.
The code in comment #6 fails to compile.
And to IBM.
% xlf -qversion
IBM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55474
Bug #: 55474
Summary: global-buffer-overflow in lto-wrapper.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55475
Bug #: 55475
Summary: heap-buffer-overflow in fortran/error.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de 2012-11-26 20:57:53
UTC ---
I'm also having difficulties to see how the interface definition
could be standard compatible. The F2k8 draft says:
15.5.1 Deļ¬nition and reference of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
