http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22 06:49:09
UTC ---
bootstrap regtest completed (r180257 + patch proposed);
fails in struct-layout1 and vmx are gone (all plugins are now failing, but
likely a different reason).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
08:10:45 UTC ---
Updated patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02003.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29948
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33801
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing warning |Missing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50730
--- Comment #3 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-10-22 12:09:30 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
First blush, looks like something could be abstracted as a function or a
macro?!?
Hmm, I don't know. There is a 'continue' there...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50819
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50819
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-10-22 12:27:51 UTC
---
Created attachment 25574
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25574
Patch for this PR and also fo PR 50730
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|confused compiler |improve list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50827
Bug #: 50827
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected elt 0 type
'e' or 'u', have '0' (rtx entry_value) in loc_cmp, at
var-tracking.c:3011
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
13:00:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Well, I see several issues with the diagnostics.
1) The call is not ambiguous, because if it were (only) ambiguous then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50778
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-10-22 13:07:06 UTC ---
Bootstrap completed with the patch here, regtesting in progress. Once the patch
is committed and regress is happy again, please close this pr as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
13:07:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
That might be an improvement, yes. That's the only issue I see here.
Actually, there is another issue in the list of candidates:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33801
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Frey d.frey at gmx dot de 2011-10-22 13:19:02 UTC
---
I think I'm asking for the word recursion or recursive in the error
message, bonus points for clearly identifying the cycle. The example is
obviously too simple to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
Bug #: 50828
Summary: class template parameter not printed for member
function template in candidate list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
13:21:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
The first one should say freeListT not freeList.
reported as PR 50828
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
13:29:19 UTC ---
I noticed this while analysing PR 42356, the missing template argument makes it
much harder to see why name lookup results are ambiguous
templatetypename T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
13:30:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
2) The reported list of overloads include those which have the wrong number
of
arguments.
That's by design. Maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16070
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=17693
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
14:14:18 UTC ---
GCC 4.7 does away with the typedefs completely:
pr17693.cc: In instantiation of ‘void A::g() [with T = int]’:
pr17693.cc:13:16: required from here
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
Bug #: 50829
Summary: avx extra copy for _mm256_insertf128_pd
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21038
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=24607
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=25362
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=50830
Bug #: 50830
Summary: [c++0x] Variadic template, inner class error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50819
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-10-22 14:50:01 UTC ---
excellent!
thanks Ira for the fast fix.
It does work. No side effect at first look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50831
Bug #: 50831
Summary: [4.7 regression] SIGSEGV in link.cc:1904
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50831
--- Comment #1 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-10-22 15:15:07 UTC ---
$ gdb --args ./gcj-dbtool.exe
rGNU gdb (GDB) 7.3.50.20110903-cvs
Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #12 from Ivan Godard igodard at pacbell dot net 2011-10-22
15:52:54 UTC ---
Manual said:
g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are not
even viable, and for the ones not viable, explain why.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50831
gee jojelino at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7 regression] SIGSEGV in |[4.7 regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50617
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44683
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-10-22
17:01:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
This looks similar to PR 34283, a RA problem.
Ah, indeed. I also had a function that ended with:
vmovapd%xmm1, %xmm0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50832
Bug #: 50832
Summary: Strange ix86_attr_length_immediate_default
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50045
--- Comment #1 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-10-22 17:35:01 UTC ---
and newer one.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /tmp/gcc/host-i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/jc1.exe gnu.zip
-fhash-synchronization -fuse-divide-subroutine -fcheck-references
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50045
--- Comment #2 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-10-22 17:37:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 25576
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25576
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50833
Bug #: 50833
Summary: ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2243
with -fshrink-wrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
--- Comment #4 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-10-22 19:33:19 UTC ---
;;
;; Full RTL generated for this function:
;;
(note 1 0 4 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
(note 4 1 2 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 2 4 3 2 (set (reg/f:SI 61 [ this ])
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
19:43:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I wonder why the detailed overload failure that Nathan implemented does not
trigger here. I would expect to give details of why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16070
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
19:53:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
so g++ is not as good as clang, but it got closer at GCC 4.7. Perhaps g++
could
handle better the unresolved overloaded function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21038
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
19:57:45 UTC ---
Using an editor that can jump between braces (e.g. % in vim) makes it trivial
to find if you've indented your code sensibly. As Andrew said in comment 1, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
20:37:03 UTC ---
reduced:
templatetemplateclass class...
struct list_templates {};
templateclass
struct aa {};
templateclass... T
struct test {};
templatetemplateclass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
20:57:04 UTC ---
The reduced example compiles if the partial specialization is declared so the
pack expansion is last:
templateclass T, templateclass class... F
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
21:07:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
when i remove every `...` its compile without problems
N.B. that doesn't mean this is a G++ bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-10-22 21:15:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I agree, but the partial specialization
templatetemplateclass class... F, class T
struct testlist_templatesF..., T;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50196
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
21:31:28 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Oct 22 21:31:24 2011
New Revision: 180329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180329
Log:
PR libstdc++/50196
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50196
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-22
21:39:49 UTC ---
Seems due to the below, ie, no decoration for a primary. Remains to be seen if
in other contexts (in this case the call chain is dump_template_decl -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
22:01:12 UTC ---
Changing it would be consistent with the output for non-template member
functions of class templates:
templatetypename T
struct A {
void f() { }
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-22
22:02:30 UTC ---
does the last sentence of [temp.class.spec] apply here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50834
Bug #: 50834
Summary: Documentation about STL thread safety is ambiguous
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50834
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-22
23:39:06 UTC ---
Indeed.
The difference between the two is in flags (primary is true for both of
course): due to the '| TFF_TEMPLATE_NAME' # error.c:1214 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23
00:46:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #11)
I wonder why the detailed overload failure that Nathan implemented does not
trigger here. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23
00:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Manual said:
g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are
not
even viable, and for the ones
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49246
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Gray jsg at openbsd dot org 2011-10-23 01:08:43
UTC ---
This seems to be resolved by adding PCH support for OpenBSD. Without which
builds will fail even if PCH are disabled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #16 from Ivan Godard igodard at pacbell dot net 2011-10-23
01:28:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #12)
Manual said:
g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are
not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23
01:54:17 UTC ---
But for this testcase I don't want to be told overload resolution passed or
failed, I want to be told it's ambiguous, because that's the error in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-23
02:03:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Manual said:
g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are
not
even viable, and for the ones not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at redhat dot com 2011-10-23 02:06:56
UTC ---
I think that makes sense, yes. People can always specify -Wno-narrowing if they
don't want it.
paolo.carlini at oracle dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
;
};
Then,
// std::vectorint v;
true ? rvalue_probestd::vectorint (v) : v
should be evaluated to an lvalue.
But in a function template, this is incorrectly evaluated to an rvalue.
Tested on gcc-4.7.0 20111022 (in a C++03 mode).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-23
02:12:42 UTC ---
Great. I'll post the patch tomorrow.
68 matches
Mail list logo
