http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49071
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49075
Summary: Documentation - live web pages and header files of old
versions have dead links in them
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45978
--- Comment #5 from miles at gnu dot org 2011-05-20 04:09:01 UTC ---
Hmm, I'm not getting this warning anymore ... is the bug fixed?
[version "g++ (Debian 20110519-1) 4.7.0 20110519 (experimental) [trunk revision
173903]"]
Thanks,
-Miles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49074
Summary: Incomplete error message
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49073
Summary: g++ optimizer breaks do-while code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49021
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-05-19
23:37:54 UTC ---
The regression started with r170601:
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 1 22:44:35 2011
New Revision: 170601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170601
Log:
PR c+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #93 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-19
22:41:41 UTC ---
Time report:
ipa lto gimple out: 10.28 ( 4%) usr 1.05 (11%) sys 11.35 ( 4%) wall
0 kB ( 0%) ggc
ipa lto decl in : 98.45 (37%) usr 2.23 (24%) sys 100.91 (36%) wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49071
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49072
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-19
22:30:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I downloaded from one of the mirror sites the following tar balls:
>
> gcc-4.6.0.tar.gz
> gmp-4.3.2.tar.bz2
> mpc-0.8.1.tar.gz
> mpfr-2.4.2.tar.bz2
>
> I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #92 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-19
22:28:18 UTC ---
decl in is now at 96 seconds.
oprofile for streaming in is:
27469 9.3054 lto1 htab_find_slot_with_hash
23175 7.8508 libc-2.11.1.so _int_malloc
18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #49 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-19
20:53:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu May 19 20:53:33 2011
New Revision: 173920
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173920
Log:
2011-06-19 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49072
Summary: Error building the compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49061
--- Comment #2 from Julien Pommier 2011-05-19 19:30:49
UTC ---
Thanks Ira, I guess you are right. Testing with the latest gcc 4.6.1 snapshot,
the bug seems to be gone !
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49071
--- Comment #1 from John Regehr 2011-05-19 19:27:34
UTC ---
May be related to 48124
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49066
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2011-05-19 19:06:15 UTC ---
I found another example that convinces me that the current behaviour is a real
bug and that this issue is not just an enhancement request. Consider this
example:
//---
void foo() = d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49014
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2011-05-19 19:09:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Changing the type to ssecomi (like below, as in atom.md) fixes this.
>
> Uros, does this look right to you? The other ssecomi* reservations also have
> the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49071
Summary: Wrong code with -fschedule-insns (x86-64)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig
||2011.05.19 18:36:55
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Nicola Pero 2011-05-19 18:36:55
UTC ---
Confirmed. The testcase fails to compile with
gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20110519 (experimental).
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49070
Summary: ObjC++ compiler fails to compile ObjC method
invocations without keyword arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49068
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-19
18:16:53 UTC ---
&jape+3 is the issue.
ble-shared
--disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110519 (experimental) [trunk revision 173917] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. /home/ryan/ice.i -Os
/home/ryan/ice.i: In function 'foo':
/home/ryan/ice.i:23:11: internal compiler error: in gen_cstoredi4, at
config/ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49068
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-19
18:17:17 UTC ---
It does say which argument too: "argument 6".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49068
Summary: Failure to auto-cast in expression, results in broken
code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49051
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49067
Summary: Internal Compiler Error with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49032
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
17:07:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 24293
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24293
gcc47-pr49032.patch
Untested fix. Works on this testcase, as well as when s is actually forced to
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
--- Comment #8 from Cecilio 2011-05-19 17:01:15
UTC ---
Thanks again, Paolo and Jackub, for your help and explanations. Believe it or
not, I a have a PhD and had to learn a lot of complex mathematics, but I never
heard about so many types of 'rou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49051
--- Comment #3 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-19 16:56:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I disagree. The transformation of array to pointer is done immediately at
> > declaration time (8.3.5/6), so there is no subs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49058
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49014
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49051
--- Comment #2 from Johannes Schaub
2011-05-19 16:26:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I disagree. The transformation of array to pointer is done immediately at
> declaration time (8.3.5/6), so there is no substitution into an array type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49058
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49058
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49058
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-19
16:09:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 24291
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24291
Fix
Here's a fix, which breaks bind, so I'm not going to check it in yet. Is there
already a libstd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49051
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #21 from Edmar Wienskoski 2011-05-19
15:52:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Edmar, have you posted your alternative patch to gcc-patches?
> That's where patch review is done, not in bugzilla.
I don't remember, I am posting it t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49066
Summary: [C++0x] Non-defining declaration of deleted function
suppresses usage validation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49058
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49059
Petr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40483
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49065
Summary: Write of non-aligned volatile float generates extra
read instructions on PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40483
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2011-05-19 14:29:11 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu May 19 14:29:05 2011
New Revision: 173913
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173913
Log:
PR target/40483
* configure.ac (gcc_cv_as_comdat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49064
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Wyderski 2011-05-19
14:27:28 UTC ---
This is caused by the following definition in emmintrin.h:
/* The Intel API is flexible enough that we must allow aliasing with other
vector types, and their scalar components. *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49064
Summary: [x86/x64]: broken alias analysis leads vectorizer to
emit poor code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
13:14:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 19 13:13:57 2011
New Revision: 173908
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173908
Log:
PR c++/49043
* decl.c (check_omp_return): S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49063
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49063
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-11.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
13:12:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 19 13:11:56 2011
New Revision: 173907
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173907
Log:
PR c++/49043
* decl.c (check_omp_return): S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49063
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-19
13:07:53 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 19 13:07:50 2011
New Revision: 173906
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173906
Log:
2011-05-19 Richard Guenther
PR testsui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49038
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-05-19 13:05:42 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 May 2011, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49038
>
> Ira Rosen changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-19
12:58:34 UTC ---
It was the last case I was having trouble with. I also was getting different
results from different compilers, so I needed to confirm independently. I have
this part working now. Still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49061
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48822
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48251
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-19 12:16:25 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
> 11:28:25 UTC ---
> If you can't attach to a running process, that sounds like either a gdb bug,
> or
> kernel bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49038
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #2 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #4 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48903
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49060
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at google dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49062
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49060
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49062
Summary: [4.7 regression] Many C++ tests ICE on Tru64 UNIX:
non-DECL_ONE_ONLY node in a same_comdat_group list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49061
Summary: wrong code with ARM NEON intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49060
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-19
12:04:27 UTC ---
Personally I consider this legacy code essentially frozen, and don't mean to
spend time on it barring serious regressions. If Ian can review the patch and
approve it, I don't object, t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48251
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
11:28:25 UTC ---
If you can't attach to a running process, that sounds like either a gdb bug, or
kernel bug, certainly not a gcc fault.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49058
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49060
--- Comment #1 from David Tardon 2011-05-19
11:26:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 24290
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24290
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49060
Summary: use of deleted memory in __gnu_cxx::hashtable::erase
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48251
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-19 11:07:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
> 10:38:20 UTC ---
> Can this be closed now?
No, skipping the tests is just a workaround. I mean to look into the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49059
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48246
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petr.malik at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49059
--- Comment #1 from Petr 2011-05-19 10:51:37
UTC ---
Created attachment 24288
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24288
Preprocessed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49059
Summary: Linking with -flto fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48333
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48985
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-19
10:45:29 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 19 10:45:26 2011
New Revision: 173901
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173901
Log:
2011-05-19 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
Wouter van Gulik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #13 from Wouter van Gulik
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
10:40:13 UTC ---
Can you please ping this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48251
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||flast at flast dot jp
--- Comment #11 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49056
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-19 09:33:52 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 19 09:33:49 2011
New Revision: 173896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173896
Log:
2011-05-19 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49052
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-05-19 09:01:30
UTC ---
Not a GCC bug.
As an aside, CIFS mounts work quite well IF the server supports the "CIFS Unix
extensions"; Samba supports those, but IIRC the Windows CIFS server doesn't.
Without t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49046
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49052
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-19 08:56:37
UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
>
> vincenzo Innocente changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-19 09:03:15 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 19 09:03:12 2011
New Revision: 173894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173894
Log:
2011-05-19 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49054
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-19
08:56:11 UTC ---
I think this is just an artifact of how we handle __builtin_unreachable ().
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44217
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
Joel Yliluoma changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++0x] Returns from lambda |[OpenMP & C++0x]: Compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48849
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-19 08:49:32 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 19 08:49:28 2011
New Revision: 173893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173893
Log:
2011-05-19 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-19
08:42:45 UTC ---
Glad that the issue is clear now. By the way, Cecilio, apparently in your
Comment #4 you didn't get my point about the C++ library vs printf: the ISO C++
Standard specifies the behavio
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
