http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41617
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46616
Summary: ia64: When compiling gcc with lto support: "collect2:
ld returned 1 exit status"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24358
--- Comment #2 from Nicola Pero 2010-11-23 09:47:10
UTC ---
Author: nicola
Date: Tue Nov 23 09:47:07 2010
New Revision: 167073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167073
Log:
In gcc/objc/:
2010-11-23 Nicola Pero
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24358
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46607
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46616
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46614
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2010-11-23 10:01:03
UTC ---
It looks that sched2 pass is to blame. For the original case, we have:
_.split4:
;; Function main1 (main1)
...
207 [sp:DI+0x30]=xmm8:V16QI
REG_DEAD: xmm8:V16QI
1158 xmm1:V16QI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46605
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46606
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36104
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46617
Summary: String concatenation fools extraction for translation.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46618
Summary: UNKNOWN_LOCATION => bus error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33637
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-23
11:45:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 22494
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22494
gcc46-pr33637.patch
I guess the important question is, do we support (or even just pretend to
suppo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
Summary: gcc thinks like of code can be removed.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46618
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33637
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-11-23 12:25:19
UTC ---
On 11/23/2010 12:46 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If not (it would surprise me if everything worked, e.g.
> $1=`cd $with_build_time_tools&& pwd`/$2
> in acx.m4 will not do w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46605
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
12:52:20 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 23 12:52:16 2010
New Revision: 167074
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167074
Log:
2010-11-23 Richard Guenther
PR lto/466
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46605
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-23
13:01:42 UTC ---
What happens if -fwrapv is used as an option to GCC?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46614
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-23
13:07:37 UTC ---
Yeah, on the #c4 testcase it works with additional
--param max-pending-list-length=33
(compared to the default 32), so it is related to the flush of pending list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45940
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2010-11-23
13:44:45 UTC ---
I have a patch to fix this problem, but I also see that the provided testcase
has another error message which I think is correct:
In file included from src/Building.cpp:77:0:
src/Bui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
13:45:36 UTC ---
On the branch I see:
0x0040d1b3 <+50131>: rdtsc
0x0040d1b5 <+50133>: mov%edx,%r11d
0x0040d1b8 <+50136>: mov0x8(%rsp),%rdx
0x00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
13:59:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 22496
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22496
reduced (but no longer executable) testcase
Reduced testcase. Compiling it with -O2 on x86_64 li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46500
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
14:11:33 UTC ---
Even smaller testcase:
static int havege_bigarray [0x10 + 16384];
static int andpt = 0;
static volatile int *havege_pwalk = 0;
static int PT = 0;
static int PT2 = 0;
void colle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.3.4 |
Target Milestone|4.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.4
Target Milestone|4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-23
14:26:53 UTC ---
Looks just like bogus inline asm. For rdtsc which sets 32-bits in %eax and
32-bits in %edx, for 32-bit code you want "=A" (long_long_variable) and
for 64-bit code you need "=a" (one_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
14:38:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Looks just like bogus inline asm. For rdtsc which sets 32-bits in %eax and
> 32-bits in %edx, for 32-bit code you want "=A" (long_long_variable) and
> f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46614
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-23
14:47:43 UTC ---
So, the bug is that we have two kinds of INSNs in
deps->last_pending_memory_flush
1) jumps added there via:
deps->last_pending_memory_flush
= alloc_INSN_LIST
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
15:01:37 UTC ---
The original testcase should just use
__asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc":"=a"(havege_hardtick)::"dx");
everywhere. That fixes the original testcase for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45940
Patrick Marlier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick.marlier at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46614
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-23
15:12:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 22497
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22497
gcc46-pr46614.patch
Untested fix that cures this testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46499
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-23
15:16:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 23 15:16:43 2010
New Revision: 167082
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167082
Log:
PR middle-end/46499
* cfgexpand.c (maybe_cl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46500
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-11-23 15:30:08 UTC ---
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I then posted an update of the first (void * based) patch that
> encapsulated the void * in a struct or union:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #14 from Cristian RodrÃguez
2010-11-23 15:34:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> They can use the new rdtsc builtin.
In which GCC version will it appear ? will be cool if you can share a little
example as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46598
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-23 15:44:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > They can use the new rdtsc builtin.
>
> In which GCC version will it appear ? will be cool if you can share a little
> example as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45940
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46562
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
16:06:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 22498
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22498
wip patch
Work in progress patch. Needs to transition functions elsewhere, hookize
fold_const_ag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
Summary: 32-bit structures containing bitfields are not copied
correctly on -O2 , x86 backend
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46621
Summary: gimple.h includes tm.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33637
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-23
16:27:40 UTC ---
Actually, the gcc/configure.ac hunks are needed too (just tested on
x86_64-linux
with a hack which added the (ignored) -X32_64 to extra_nmflags_for_target in
toplevel configure{,.ac})
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46622
Summary: ARM --target-help headings not translated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46620
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-23
16:55:12 UTC ---
GCC 4.5 produces the desired result.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46623
Summary: microblaze --enable-werror-always build fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46624
Summary: istream::sync() doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #3 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-11-23
17:55:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Do you have a run-time testcase?
There is a test you can run in v_prime.c , it should fail to set the high bit
and therefor should not ever find a prime.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46624
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-23
18:00:30 UTC ---
I don't see a requirement in the standard for the behaviour you expect.
istream::sync() calls streambuf::sync(), the behaviour of which depends on the
specific streambuf type. Sinc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-23 18:06:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Do you have a run-time testcase?
>
> There is a test you can run in v_prime.c , it should fail to set the high bit
It won't link:
[
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12258
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-23
18:09:39 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Nov 23 18:09:34 2010
New Revision: 167090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167090
Log:
Properly check default linker.
2010-11-23
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #5 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-11-23
18:13:23 UTC ---
Hi
> /tmp/ccaJLFo2.o: In function `v_bignum_set_random':
> v_bignum.c:(.text+0x25c): undefined reference to `v_randgen_new'
> v_bignum.c:(.text+0x276): undefined reference to `v_ran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46625
Summary: libquadmath: Mangle internal symbols; rename
__float128 <-> string functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
--- Comment #6 from Laurent GUERBY 2010-11-23
18:29:43 UTC ---
I see the same errors, the patch has:
+# define INIT_ARRAY_SECTION_ASM_OP ARM_EABI_CTORS_SECTION_OP
+# define FINI_ARRAY_SECTION_ASM_OP ARM_EABI_DTORS_SECTION_OP
So might be rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-23 18:41:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> You will find them in v_randgen.c
>
> Here you find (among other things) the entire verse lib:
>
> http://www.quelsolaar.com/files/verse_apps.zip
>
Please u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-23 18:45:14 UTC ---
> Any reason why this patch isn't submitted/commited?
No. I was traveling and forgot about it. Access to the arm box
on my desk is unreliable.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46626
Summary: [4.6 Regression] simple use of virtual methods causes
pure virtual method call in c++0x mode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36104
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.6 |4.6.0
--- Comment #8 from Benjamin Kosn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #7 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-11-23
19:07:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 22502
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22502
full test case.
Test case that should run the code (sorry i dont have gcc on the machine om
on). S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42690
--- Comment #27 from Dave Korn 2010-11-23 19:08:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> The current linker plugin scheme may be flawed. The order of
> linking libraries (archive and DSO) is very important. They
> have to be placed between crti.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46627
Summary: "Error: symbol `again' is already defined" error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42690
--- Comment #28 from Dave Korn 2010-11-23 19:18:46
UTC ---
Author: davek
Date: Tue Nov 23 19:18:39 2010
New Revision: 167091
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167091
Log:
PR driver/42690
* gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46473
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46627
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cacheflood at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46626
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-23
19:37:08 UTC ---
related to PR 46526 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46626
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46626
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-23 19:58:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> related to PR 46526 ?
Revision 167049 still fails.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46624
MyAdEss at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46628
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #9 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-11-23
20:20:51 UTC ---
Hi
> typedef unsigned short VBigDig;
>uv = x[1 + j] * x[1 + i];
>high = (uv & 0x8000u) != 0;
>
> Is really
>uv = (int)x[1 + j] * (int)x[1 + i];
>high = (uv & 0x8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-23
20:24:00 UTC ---
uv = (unsigned int)((int)x[1 + j] * (int)x[1 + i]);
Is what the C standard says should be done as unsigned short is smaller than
int so it is promoted to int. So we have a 16x16
cc-4.6.0
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --with-fpmath=sse --with-plugin-ld=ld
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101123 (experimental) (GCC)
[...@gnu-35 gcc-test-spec]$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46545
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-23
20:54:53 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Nov 23 20:54:49 2010
New Revision: 167096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167096
Log:
2010-11-23 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46545
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #11 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-11-23
21:29:12 UTC ---
Hi Again!
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
>
> --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-23
> 20:24:00 UTC ---
>uv = (unsigned int)((int)x[1 + j] * (int)x[
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-23
21:34:11 UTC ---
>double is also bigger then
unsigned short, why not promote it to double if we are bringing in random
types?
because the c standard has specific rules about integral types smaller t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-23
21:34:35 UTC ---
Oh overflow != wrapping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46630
Summary: Front end issue
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
Repor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46630
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-23
21:59:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Should compile fine per ISO/IEC 14882:2005, 14.6 (Name resolution).
Why? T::N is not a typename
ISO/IEC 14882:2003 14.6 paragraph 4 seems pretty clear t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46624
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-23
22:00:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> Oh, I guess you are right. Standard doesn't specify behaviour for cin's
> streambuf type. It is implementation-specific. It worked for me on different
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #14 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-11-23
22:06:39 UTC ---
Hi again!
> because the c standard has specific rules about integral types smaller
> than
> int; they are all promoted to int.
promoting a value to one type in order to do an oper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-23
22:09:44 UTC ---
>Not true. it is not undefined, it is implementation specific.
Huh? Why do you think that is true? The C standard is explicit when it comes
to signed integer overflow is undefined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
--- Comment #16 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-11-23
22:31:14 UTC ---
Hi again!
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46619
>
> --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-23
> 22:09:44 UTC ---
>>Not true. it is not undefined, it is implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-23
23:01:01 UTC ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02394.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46543
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-23
23:01:52 UTC ---
First patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02394.html
TODO:
- Get it included
- Document the math functions
- Make sure it is included at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46520
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-23
23:02:43 UTC ---
Cf. partially complimentary, partially overlapping patches at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-11/msg00291.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02189.html
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
