On February 13, 2014 8:07:16 AM GMT+01:00, chronicle
chas...@ceis.cujae.edu.cu wrote:
Hi PPL i developed a plugin that produces the following gimple
test ()
{
int selected_fnc_var_.3;
int random_Var.2;
int D.2363;
int _1;
bb 2:
random_Var.2_2 = rand ();
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
What about instead of our current odd way of identifying LTO objects
simply add a special ELF note telling the linker the plugin to use?
.note._linker_plugin
Hi Shiva,
I wonder if you have any test case to demonstrate the potential
code-gen issue you are concerned with.
Thanks,
Yufeng
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Shiva Chen shiva0...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about the implementation of
aarch64_final_eh_return_addr
which is
Hi,
For C++ applications, on PPC, gcc v4.8.1 is generating the call frame
information in the .eh_frame section by default.
Could you please tell me why .eh_frame is being generated instead of
.debug_frame?
Also, the dwarf4 standard does not describe .eh_frame section. I
understand that by
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:24:53PM +0530, Ramana wrote:
For C++ applications, on PPC, gcc v4.8.1 is generating the call frame
information in the .eh_frame section by default.
Could you please tell me why .eh_frame is being generated instead of
.debug_frame?
Because .eh_frame is the same
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Tobias Grosser tob...@grosser.es wrote:
On 01/27/2014 08:29 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hello,
motivated by the recent MPC 1.0.2 announcement, I looked at
./contrib/download_prerequisites and also at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ to see which
On 02/13/2014 08:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Tobias Grosser tob...@grosser.es wrote:
On 01/27/2014 08:29 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hello,
motivated by the recent MPC 1.0.2 announcement, I looked at
./contrib/download_prerequisites and also at
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Tobias Grosser tob...@grosser.es wrote:
On 02/13/2014 08:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Tobias Grosser tob...@grosser.es wrote:
On 01/27/2014 08:29 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hello,
motivated by the recent MPC 1.0.2
On 02/13/2014 08:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Tobias Grosser tob...@grosser.es wrote:
On 02/13/2014 08:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Tobias Grosser tob...@grosser.es wrote:
On 01/27/2014 08:29 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
==
GNU Tools Cauldron 2014
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Call for Abstracts and Participation
18-20 July 2014
Cambridge, England
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:24:53PM +0530, Ramana wrote:
For C++ applications, on PPC, gcc v4.8.1 is generating the call frame
information in the .eh_frame section by default.
Could you please tell me why .eh_frame is being
On 13/02/14 02:14, Shiva Chen wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about the implementation of
aarch64_final_eh_return_addr
which is used to point out the return address of the frame
According the source code
If FP is not needed
return gen_frame_mem (DImode,
Hi, Yufeng
Sorry, I don't have any testcase
I just mis-understanding the implementation.
Hi, Renlin
Thanks to point out my mis-understanding.
I didn't aware that LP would in different position between FP needed
(bottom of callee) and FP not needed(top of callee).
I have check the
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 16:23 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:22:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Us Linux-kernel hackers will often need to use volatile semantics in
Hi everyone,
I noticed that the GCC build process currently only uses the
-Wmissing-prototypes flag, and not the -Wmissing-declarations flag.
It seems that the former flag only works on C source files, which
means that GCC's source files no longer benefit from this flag as they
are now C++
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140213 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140213/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi,
I have noticed that record_component_aliases is called during LTO time and it
examines contents of BINFO:
0x5cd7a5 record_component_aliases(tree_node*)
../../gcc/alias.c:1005
0x5cd4a9 get_alias_set(tree_node*)
../../gcc/alias.c:895
0x5cc67a
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:03:57PM -0800, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 16:23 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:22:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Us
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 18:01 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:03:57PM -0800, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 16:23 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:22:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Paul E.
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 10:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I don't know the specifics of your example, but from how I understand
it, I don't see a problem if the compiler can prove that the store will
always happen.
To be more specific, if the compiler can prove that the store will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
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=59737
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60166
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
Well, the code paths in question do not necessarily exist (you could say the
same thing with -O2, where the function is not inlined: there may be some code
paths for which fn1()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60167
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60171
Bug ID: 60171
Summary: SEGFAULT when compiling with --coverage on travis-ci
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60169
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60166
--- Comment #2 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #1)
Isn't this a dup of PR59833.
It isn't. This one is only impacts QNAN.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #2)
Well, the code paths in question do not necessarily exist (you could say the
same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60162
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Bug ID: 60172
Summary: ARM performance regression from trunk@207239
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
The code path exists in the code,
It exists *only* if fn2() can return 0. But the fact is that in the reality,
this can never
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60171
--- Comment #1 from Dario Lombardo lomato at gmail dot com ---
On my local platform (ubuntu 12.04, with same version of gcc as travis), I
don't have the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60173
Bug ID: 60173
Summary: [4.9 Regression]: gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c
scan-tree-dump-times
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
How can the compiler know that fn2 never returns 0, without inlining (not in
this case), some attribute (not provided, gcc right now has returns_nonnull
attribute but that is only for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60162
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32120
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32120action=edit
Reduced from gzip.
Command line options.
-march=armv7-a -mfpu=neon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
How can the compiler know that fn2 never returns 0, without inlining (not in
this case), some attribute (not provided, gcc right
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #10 from PaX Team pageexec at gmail dot com ---
please reopen, this bug is not fixed yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60162
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #8)
The -Wmaybe-uninitialized rule given in the gcc man page is (for GCC 4.8):
-Wmaybe-uninitialized
For an automatic variable, if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #8)
Concerning the if it cannot prove the uninitialized paths are not executed
at run time part, GCC should be able to prove more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Only in your reading of the documentation.
You clearly don't know what you are asking for, even the very common case of
pthread_t th;
if (pthread_create (th, NULL, tf, NULL))
goto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
Now, I agree that ideally, GCC should warn for your last testcase. But I
guess in that case inlining either doesn't happen or it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
Bug ID: 60174
Summary: ICE on ACATS cc3305a
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you check from the -fdump-tree-all dumps where i_34(ab) and i_399(ab)
start to have overlapping life-ranges?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
Bug ID: 60175
Summary: ICE on gcc.dg/asan/nosanitize-and-inline.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43546
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 13 13:20:06 2014
New Revision: 207757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207757root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/43546
* expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43546
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
The definition of a function changes with inlining ;-)
It shouldn't: what happens at run time isn't changed by inlining.
f(i) is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59878
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 13 13:35:10 2014
New Revision: 207758
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207758root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-13 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59878
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #15 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
Now, I agree that ideally, GCC should warn for your last testcase. But I
guess in that case inlining either doesn't happen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
Can you check from the -fdump-tree-all dumps where i_34(ab) and i_399(ab)
start to have overlapping life-ranges?
OK, i used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60176
Bug ID: 60176
Summary: [C++11] void return value in std::list::insert()
c++1 should be an iterator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 32122
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32122action=edit
output from -fdump-tree-all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 32123
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32123action=edit
output from -fdump-tree-dom1-details
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60177
Bug ID: 60177
Summary: Unable to deduce template base of derived class in
function template accepting a simple-template-id
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, I believe this is caused by some jump-threading threading over a copy of
an SSA name used in abnormal context. You can try verifying if
-fno-tree-dominator-opts fixes this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
Ok, I believe this is caused by some jump-threading threading over a copy of
an SSA name used in abnormal context. You can try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60178
Bug ID: 60178
Summary: std::mutex::try_lock failing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
Bug ID: 60179
Summary: [4.9 Regression] target optimization attribute
streaming is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32125
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32125action=edit
untested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32125|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60180
Bug ID: 60180
Summary: internal compiler error: in use_thunk, at
cp/method.c:338
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Feb 13 16:18:13 2014
New Revision: 207763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207763root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libffi/60073
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
Bug ID: 60181
Summary: constant folding of complex number incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60180
--- Comment #1 from EP ignoreddropbox at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32128
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32128action=edit
dump created by gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60174
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
That was my thought as well. I've got some unexpected family stuff to deal
with over the next couple days, but I don't see any reason why this can't be
nailed down early next week.
which are marked as MUST COALESCE.
i_34(ab) and i_399(ab)
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.9.0 20140213 (experimental) [trunk revision 207749] (x86_64-suse-linux) GCC
error:|
| SSA corruption
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Bug ID: 60182
Summary: g++ segfault within template expansion using using
aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
Bug ID: 60183
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] phiprop creates invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60141
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
This appears to have been exposed, not caused, by the change to the
pass ordering. It is in fact a duplicate of PR middle-end/43631, which
was fixed on trunk by r197994 on 4/15/13.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60176
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Our std::list needs work to conform to C++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60178
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57936
Orion Poplawski orion at cora dot nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||orion at cora
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60141
Han Shen shenhanc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shenhanc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
There are no specified accuracy requirements for complex multiplication /
division, even under Annex G (parts of which - imaginary types in
particular - are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60184
Bug ID: 60184
Summary: g++ does not allow static members of named unions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
--- Comment #26 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Thu Feb 13 21:15:06 2014
New Revision: 207766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207766root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-13 Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60141
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
This appears to have been exposed, not caused, by the change to the
pass ordering. It is in fact a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60185
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60185
Bug ID: 60185
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE with invalid default parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60186
Bug ID: 60186
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with invalid value in
constexpr array initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60186
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60152
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 13 22:42:44 2014
New Revision: 207770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207770root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR debug/60152
* dwarf2out.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60152
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60187
Bug ID: 60187
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with parameter
pack as underlying type for enum
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo