On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote:
I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
building primarily for myself, and if I did have to target a 32-bit
environment, I'd likely have to mess with
On 07/24/2013 10:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote:
I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
building primarily for myself, and if I did have to target a 32-bit
On 07/24/2013 09:35 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/24/2013 10:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote:
I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
building primarily for
On 07/23/2013 09:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
2. Extend the current 16-byte PLT entry:
ff 25 32 8b 21 00jmpq *name@GOTPCREL(%rip)
68 00 00 00 00 pushq $index
e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq PLT0
which clear bound registers, to 32-byte to add BND prefix to branch
On 07/24/2013 10:39 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Well, of course. It's a prerequisite for building GCC. I presume that
Debian has the same abilities as Fedora, where if you want to build GCC
you just type
yum-builddep gcc
and Fedora installs all the build reqs for GCC.
Yes, apt-get
On 07/24/2013 10:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/24/2013 10:39 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Well, of course. It's a prerequisite for building GCC. I presume that
Debian has the same abilities as Fedora, where if you want to build GCC
you just type
yum-builddep gcc
and Fedora installs
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote:
I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
building primarily for myself, and if I did
On 07/24/2013 11:32 AM, David Starner wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote:
I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
I would just install GCC's build dependencies and build with the
defaults.
I'm glad you have infinite hard-drive space. I rather wish fewer
developers did, as well as those infinitely fast computers they seem
to have; perhaps
There is no resistance whatsoever to making it work with real systems
and real workloads.
It does not sound or look like that way.
The problem is that you don't know that people
running on 64-bit hardware often choose to compile -32 and run -32
locally.
But we know people are running into
Hi Eric,
Thank you for your interesting on this feature.
Best Regards
WeiY
在 2013-7-24，上午1:07，Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com 写道：
ok, because i am not familiar with compiler implementation. So if you can
give me some references i will appreciate you very much. And by the way is
there
On 07/24/2013 01:26 PM, David Starner wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
I would just install GCC's build dependencies and build with the
defaults.
I'm glad you have infinite hard-drive space. I rather wish fewer
developers did, as well as those
On 07/24/2013 01:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There is no resistance whatsoever to making it work with real systems
and real workloads.
It does not sound or look like that way.
The problem is that you don't know that people
running on 64-bit hardware often choose to compile -32 and run
Hi!
OpenMP defines a canonical loop form (in OpenMP 4: »2.6 Canonical Loop
Form«, in OpenMP 3.1 as part of »2.5.1 Loop Construct«) that says that
the loop index variable »must not be modified during the execution of the
for-loop other than in incr-expr«. The following code, which violates
this
Hi all,
I find a strange things: Whether DIE(Debug Information Entry) of a
static const int member in a class has the attribute
DW_AT_const_value depends on whether there is a virtual function
defined in the class. Is it a expected behavior for GCC? And the
attribute DW_AT_const_value matters
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support AVX-512:
Afaik avx 512 doubles the amount of xmm registers. Can we get them callee saved
please?
Thanks,
Richard.
http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/319433-015.pdf
--
H.J.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/23/2013 09:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
2. Extend the current 16-byte PLT entry:
ff 25 32 8b 21 00jmpq *name@GOTPCREL(%rip)
68 00 00 00 00 pushq $index
e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support AVX-512:
Afaik avx 512 doubles the amount of xmm registers. Can we get them callee
saved please?
Make them callee
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, H.J. Lu wrote:
Afaik avx 512 doubles the amount of xmm registers. Can we get them
callee saved please?
Make them callee saved means we need to change ld.so to
preserve them and we need to change unwind library to
support them. It is certainly doable.
And
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/24/2013 01:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There is no resistance whatsoever to making it work with real systems
and real workloads.
It does not sound or look like that way.
The problem is that you don't know that
On 07/24/2013 04:38 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/24/2013 01:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There is no resistance whatsoever to making it work with real systems
and real workloads.
It does not sound or look like that
Hi All!
This is to let you know that enabling of Intel® MPX technology (see details in
http://download-software.intel.com/sites/default/files/319433-015.pdf) in GCC
has been started. (Corresponding changes in binutils are here -
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-07/msg00233.html)
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/319433-015.pdf
introduces 4 bound registers, which will be used for parameter passing
in x86-64. Bound registers are cleared by branch instructions. Branch
instructions with
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support AVX-512:
Afaik avx 512 doubles the amount of xmm registers. Can we get them
callee
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 10:42 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Are there any other Linux targets with callee saved vector registers?
Yes, on POWER. From our ABI:
On processors with the VMX feature.
v0-v1 Volatile scratch registers
v2-v13 Volatile vector parameters registers
v14-v19 Volatile
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 07:36:31PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support AVX-512:
Problem solved.
The trouble was that the blocks of my statement list weren't correctly
chained, so when lower_gimple_bind executed in pass_lower_cf, it
accessed an uninitialized memory area, thus sometimes reading the flag
as true and sometimes as false. Now everything runs smoothly.
Again,
On 07/24/2013 05:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support AVX-512:
Afaik avx 512 doubles the amount of xmm registers. Can we get them callee
saved please?
Having them callee saved pre-supposes that one knows
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:25:14AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 07/24/2013 05:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support AVX-512:
Afaik avx 512 doubles the amount of xmm registers. Can we get them
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/319433-015.pdf
introduces 4 bound registers, which will be used for parameter passing
in x86-64. Bound
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:53 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/319433-015.pdf
introduces 4 bound
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:53 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Peter Bergner berg...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 10:42 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Are there any other Linux targets with callee saved vector registers?
Yes, on POWER. From our ABI:
On processors with the VMX feature.
v0-v1 Volatile scratch
I have uploaded all the videos we recorded at the Cauldron to
the workshop page (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013).
The videos are also available at the YouTube playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsgS8fWwKJZhrjVEN7tsQyj2nLb5z0n70
If you think your talk was recorded but you do
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
Not at all: we're just disagreeing about what a real system with
a real workload looks like.
No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to
enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way
I've read through the MPX spec once, but most of it is still not very
clear to me. So please correct any misconceptions. (HJ, if you answer
any or all of these questions in your usual style with just, It's not a
problem, I will find you and I will kill you. Explain!)
Will an MPX-using binary
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Roland McGrath rol...@hack.frob.com wrote:
Will an MPX-using binary require an MPX-supporting dynamic linker to run
correctly?
* An old dynamic linker won't clobber %bndN directly, so that's not a
problem.
These are my answers and likely incorrect.
It
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 07:36:31PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Make them callee saved means we need to change ld.so to
preserve them and we need to change unwind library to
support them. It is certainly doable.
IMHO it was a mistake to not have any callee saved xmm register in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #7)
Note that OpenMP 4.0 RC2 still lists polymorphic entities as unsupported,
cf. http://openmp.org/wp/openmp-specifications/
Update: OpenMP has been officially
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57821
--- Comment #4 from Chung-Ju Wu jasonwucj at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #3)
On 32-bit hppa-unknown-linux-gnu:
Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdi
r/gcc/
20130724 Rev.201200.
$
/home1/jasonwucj/WORKING/WORK-CONTRIBUTION/build-system-3/build/build-nds32le-elf-newlib-v3/build-gcc-final/gcc/xgcc
--version
xgcc (2013-07-24 nds32le-elf-newlib-v3) 4.9.0 20130724 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57942
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57965
Bug ID: 57965
Summary: Allocation of derived type containing an allocatable
character component segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57960
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57923
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57923
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57960
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57966
Bug ID: 57966
Summary: Using a TBP to specify the shape of a dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57967
Bug ID: 57967
Summary: Incorrect code generated on ARM with
-fexpensive-optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57967
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Blaukopf daniel.blaukopf at oracle dot com ---
Created attachment 30544
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30544action=edit
Test case that can be run with libgcc-bug.so to show the failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57967
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Blaukopf daniel.blaukopf at oracle dot com ---
This code:
int f1(int x0, int y0, int z0, int x1, int y1, int z1) {
int xx = ((x0 16) + (x1 - x0) * 0x1234 + 0x8000) 16;
int yy = ((y0 16) + (y1 - y0) * 0x2345 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57966
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57968
Bug ID: 57968
Summary: MODE_EXIT switches inserted too late
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57968
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01081.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57966
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57969
Bug ID: 57969
Summary: AIX data alignment behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30545
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30545action=edit
source code patch
This patch seems to shut up cppcheck.
I did a bootstrap and that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
For a quicker review, I would recommend CC-ing Jason and adding [C++ Patch]
to the subject line.
I'm not on the inner wheel for C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In sel-sched.c,
/* We have simplified the control flow below this point. In this case,
the iterator becomes invalid. We need to try again. */
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970
Bug ID: 57970
Summary: segfault in sched-deps.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57966
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
Draft patch (not regtested yet):
Seems to survive the regtest without any failures (except for round_4.f90,
which is unrelated).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, or at gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57960
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53622
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00643.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57173
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00643.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57513
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
This is fixed in 4.9.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
If we have a straightforward explanation for why the very weird code isn't
causing problems, I think the fix almost qualifies as obvious, if properly
tested. Do we? Does it only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57967
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=55334
--- Comment #33 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can confirm that one call of resid now gets inlined on the branch
even on x86_64 (I'm confused why, the dump seems to suggest all call
sites would violate param
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57513
timshen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57971
Bug ID: 57971
Summary: Improve copy elision when returning structs by value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53309
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The runtime test is done by _gfortran_internal_pack. -Warray-temporaries
creates the warning if this is called.
If you want to know if a temporary has actually been created,
use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57972
Bug ID: 57972
Summary: Statement sinking algorithm should just be replaced
with GCM algorithm's late scheduler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57973
Bug ID: 57973
Summary: incorrect access check for protected member of
template base with using
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/henner/gcc-4.9.0
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130724 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57973
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57975
Bug ID: 57975
Summary: Core dump caused by linking with -lpthread
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57975
Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.7.3
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57973
--- Comment #2 from Roger Orr rogero at howzatt dot demon.co.uk ---
Thank you. Aoplogies for the noise.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57965
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57966
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57974
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57975
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|michi at triodia dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53309
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53309
--- Comment #3 from Rich Townsend townsend at astro dot wisc.edu ---
Thanks for the explanation about -Warray-temporaries vs.
-fcheck-array-temporaries -- got it!
Might be worth changing the output text from the former to something like
Warning:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57974
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Or, more elegantly:
__builtin_expl (-__builtin_huge_vall ())
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57974
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57975
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=57975
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57975
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57975
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am working (slowly) on some additional Debug Mode checks in mutex,
condition_variable etc. so at some point you'll be able to debug this with
-D_GLIBCX_DEBUG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57976
Bug ID: 57976
Summary: Missing time_get::get() functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57976
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
The status page needs a tweak: it's well known that isn't implemented, for the
simple reason that completing the C++11 time_get means adding the do_get
virtual, which didn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57976
--- Comment #2 from Leo Carreon lcarreon at bigpond dot net.au ---
Is there a plan to implement those functions? If yes, in which version?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57976
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
When we break the ABI. Likely in the release series after 4.9.
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
