On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:02:14AM +0800, lin zuojian wrote:
I wrote a test code like this:
void foo(int * a)
{
a[0] = 0xfafafafb;
a[1] = 0xfafafafc;
a[2] = 0xfafafafe;
a[3] = 0xfafafaff;
a[4] = 0xfafafaf0;
a[5] = 0xfafafaf1;
a[6] = 0xfafafaf2;
a[7] =
On 2/27/2014 8:12 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
dwlimegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
What would you say to something like this:
Since GCC does not parse the asm, it has no visibility of any static
variables or functions it references. This may result in those
symbols getting discarded by GCC as
On 3 March 2014 07:00, lin zuojian wrote:
Hi guys,
How do I set the format of vim,so that my code doen't look alien?
Do you mean how do you set vim to match the GCC coding style?
It's not quite right, and it's mostly used for C++, but I use:
setl formatoptions=croql cindent
Thx,Jonathan.
--
Regards
lin zuojian
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:37:01AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 March 2014 07:00, lin zuojian wrote:
Hi guys,
How do I set the format of vim,so that my code doen't look alien?
Do you mean how do you set vim to match the GCC coding style?
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
I've seen the entry on our GSoC project page and edited it to
Am 02/27/2014 03:34 PM, schrieb Richard Biener:
I've been hacking on a prototype that generates matching and
simplification code from a meta-description. The goal is
to provide a single source of transforms currently spread
over the compiler, mostly fold-const.c, gimple-fold.c and
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:02:14AM +0800, lin zuojian wrote:
I wrote a test code like this:
void foo(int * a)
{
a[0] = 0xfafafafb;
a[1] = 0xfafafafc;
a[2] = 0xfafafafe;
a[3] = 0xfafafaff;
a[4] =
As I am doing some work on avr, I would be available as an additional
maintainer, if you and the steering committee agree.
On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de writes:
Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to implement
atomic operations, but moving costly_func across func does *not*
affect the interrupt respond times in such a disastrous way.
Thus you must
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com wrote:
On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de writes:
Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to implement
atomic operations, but moving costly_func across func does *not*
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
I've been hacking on a prototype that generates matching and
simplification code from a meta-description. The goal is
to provide a single source of transforms currently spread
over the compiler, mostly
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
Comments or suggestions?
On the surface it looks like a nice idea. However, I would like to
understand the scope of this. Are you thinking of a pattern matcher
with
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
up with two years ago.
You are talking about the gimple folding interface? Yes, but it's
more similar to what I proposed before that.
All in all I think it might be worth to
On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
1. Anatoly Sokolov ae...@post.ru
2. Eric Weddington eric.wedding...@atmel.com
I have discussed the removal with Anatoly Sokolov and he is agree with it.
I can't discuss the removal with Eric Weddington
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
On 2/27/2014 11:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
On 2/27/2014 4:11 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
Over the years there has been a great deal of traffic on these lists
caused by
2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown da...@westcontrol.com:
On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
1. Anatoly Sokolov ae...@post.ru
2. Eric Weddington eric.wedding...@atmel.com
I have discussed the removal with Anatoly Sokolov and he is agree
On 03/03/14 11:49, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com wrote:
On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de writes:
Notice that in code1, func might contain such asm-pairs to implement
atomic operations, but
2014-03-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
up with two years ago.
You are talking about the gimple folding interface? Yes, but it's
more similar to what I proposed
On 03/03/14 14:54, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:53 PM, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com wrote:
On 03/03/14 11:49, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com wrote:
On 28/02/14 13:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
Regarding the latter, we make a fresh start at each mo_consume load (ie,
we assume we know nothing -- L could have returned any possible value);
I believe this
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Denis Chertykov cherty...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown da...@westcontrol.com:
On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
1. Anatoly Sokolov ae...@post.ru
2. Eric Weddington
2014-03-03 21:01 GMT+04:00 David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Denis Chertykov cherty...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-03 15:35 GMT+04:00 David Brown da...@westcontrol.com:
On 02/03/14 19:24, Denis Chertykov wrote:
I would remove two maintainers for AVR port:
1.
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:47 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
3. The comparison was against another RCU-protected pointer,
where that other pointer was properly fetched using one
of the
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Your proposal looks quite promising at first glance. But rather than
try and comment on it immediately, I am going to take a number of uses of
RCU from the Linux kernel and apply your proposal to them, then respond
with the results
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+oDo not use the results from the boolean and || when
+ dereferencing. For example, the following (rather improbable)
+ code is buggy:
+
+ int a[2];
+ int index;
+ int
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+o Do not use the results from the boolean and || when
+
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 17:02 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:50:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140227154925.3...@vmsdvm9.vnet.ibm.com
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 11:54 -0800, Linus
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 28 February 2014 18:50, Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney
On 03/03/14 21:30, Eric Weddington wrote:
I just replied to Denis personally.
Agreed. I haven't done anything with the AVR port in a while, and I
probably won't be doing so for a while. Maybe some time in the future.
So it makes sense to remove me from maintainership.
Eric Weddington
On
Sorry, forgot about that. In that case maybe program headers would be
best, like you say. I.e. we could use a combination of GNU attributes
and a new program header, with the program header hopefully being more
general than for just this case. I suppose this comes back to the
thread
Hi,
in include/linux/compiler-gcc.h :
/* Optimization barrier */
/* The volatile is due to gcc bugs */
#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__(: : :memory)
The comment of Linux says this is a gcc bug.But will any sane compiler
disable optimization without volatile key word?
--
Regards
[Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to this list]
Hi there,
I'm currently working on adding a switch to check whether public
function involve float parameters or return values. Such a check would
be useful for people trying to write code that is compatible with both
base standard (softfloat)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60384
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60387
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=60398
Bug ID: 60398
Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL: obj-c++.dg/invalid-method-2.mm
-fgnu-runtime (test for errors, line 10)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60383
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60382
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60381
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60379
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=60374
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60375
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60376
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60389
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60386
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60385
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60398
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60376
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60398
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=60395
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60395
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=60398
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
Looks like this is caused by r208040, ...
There was no testsuite ChangeLog entry, I *did* look for recent testsuite
changes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60398
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 3 09:36:44 2014
New Revision: 208270
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208270root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR objc++/60398
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60398
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60396
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60361
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=54779
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28323|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54779
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Results (ms) for SPARKSkein on x86-64 at -O3 -gnatn -gnatp:
Before:
DT_Min is 36
Minis15.21
Median is15.22
After:
DT_Min is 36
Minis14.56
Median is14.58
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60399
Bug ID: 60399
Summary: constexpr ctor that does not init an attribute should
be rejected but isn't
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #4 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com ---
The problem only seems to occur when using the pattern = {} to default the
parameter; = foo{} and = foo() don't seem to provoke the differing
addresses.
I have confirmed that member data set in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60400
Bug ID: 60400
Summary: ICE with trigraphs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60400
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32251
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32251action=edit
gcc48-pr60400-test.patch
Testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60400
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60400
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 3 11:12:22 2014
New Revision: 208272
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208272root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/60400
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
--- Comment #5 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com ---
The following is a side-by-side diff of the disassembly of the incorrect
version vs. a correct version (defaulting the parameter with = foo{}). The
object foo has a single member of type char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 58028, which changed state.
Bug 58028 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Several failures in libgomp.graphite after
revision 200946
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54094
Bug 54094 depends on bug 58028, which changed state.
Bug 58028 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Several failures in libgomp.graphite after
revision 200946
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60370
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
This patch doesn't work, so it may not be a code ordering issue after all.
I think it *is* an ordering issue after all, and indeed your patch seems to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
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=60382
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue is that in vectorizable_reduction we compute double_reduc in a wrong
way:
if (nested_cycle)
{
def_bb = gimple_bb (reduc_def_stmt);
def_stmt_loop =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Alex, your thoughts on this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59746
Bud Davis bdavis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bdavis at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60381
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #5 from Meador Inge meadori at codesourcery dot com ---
Created attachment 32253
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32253action=edit
Work in progress patch.
Yeah, I am came to the same conclusion after making that
Using gcc-4.7.2 compiled to /usr/local
The following fails:
echo int main(){} hello.c
gcc hello.c -fopenmp
..with a message that libgomp.spec cannot be found
editing the output of gcc -dumpspecs:
include(libgomp.spec) - include(/usr/local/lib/libgomp.spec)
include(libitm.spec) -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60381
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This seems to be due to r208220.
One problem I see is that when var-tracking.c calls cselib_preserve_only_values
+ cselib_reset_table, the latter clears n_useless_values (and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Meador Inge from comment #5)
Created attachment 32253 [details]
Work in progress patch.
Yeah, I am came to the same conclusion after making that comment that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32254
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32254action=edit
gcc49-pr58595-2.patch
So what about this variant?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
Bug ID: 60401
Summary: stdlib.h does not provide abs(long) overload
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
Created attachment 32254 [details]
gcc49-pr58595-2.patch
So what about this variant?
I'll give this a bootstrap and test run, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60387
--- Comment #2 from Nistor, Mihail-Marian m_nistor at yahoo dot com ---
More details about how to reproduce the first problem.
By using the gcc version - GNU C 4.8.1 20130531 (Wed Sep 4 08:04:01 CDT 2013)
I have defined a local variable (vf1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60399
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58638
Fredrik Nyström fredrik at lysator dot liu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fredrik at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60402
Bug ID: 60402
Summary: const overload with variadics declared ambiguous
according to standard (may be related to bug 58156)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60402
--- Comment #1 from Nate McNamara nate.mcnamara at morganstanley dot com ---
Created attachment 32256
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32256action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60402
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60361
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60361
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60370
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
However, it also seems to introduce another ordering issue: In particular
the bounds of 'b' are now set as
b.dim[1].lbound = 1;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] ICE on valid with |[4.9 Regression] [OOP] ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I guess it's fair to say that the ICE is technically a regression.
The test in comment 0 compiles with r199394 to r199408. The Ice starts at
r199409.
So it is a real
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57643
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Mar 3 22:13:28 2014
New Revision: 208295
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208295root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-06-20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48587
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jb at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52036
Matheus Izvekov mizvekov at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mizvekov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60403
Bug ID: 60403
Summary: fatal error, system.ads not formatted correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
