http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #9 from bartek 'basz' szurgot
2011-10-26 06:39:15 UTC ---
implementation is nice. i think there is still one more problem to be fixed,
though. namely the line:
~_Unlock() { _M_lock.lock(); }
since lock() may throw an exception, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50872
Bug #: 50872
Summary: internal compiler error: in inline_small_functions, at
ipa-inline.c:1413
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46617
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46617
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-26 00:50:16 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 26 00:50:11 2011
New Revision: 180466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180466
Log:
2011-10-25 Paolo Carlini
PR tran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50867
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50837
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50770
Michael Hope changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
--- Comment #3 from Michael Hope 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-25
22:29:41 UTC ---
fixed on trunk so far, I'll wait until 4.6.2 is released then fix it for 4.6.3
too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50871
Bug #: 50871
Summary: [C++0x] G++ fails to reject explicitly-defaulted
function definition with different exception spec
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46603
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46603
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-25
22:26:25 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 25 22:26:20 2011
New Revision: 180457
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180457
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46603
* reload.c (p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50868
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50867
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at codesourcery dot com
Target Milestone|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50789
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-25
20:56:47 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 25 20:56:43 2011
New Revision: 180446
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180446
Log:
PR libstdc++/50862
* include/std/condition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48851
--- Comment #25 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-25
20:07:26 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Tue Oct 25 20:07:19 2011
New Revision: 180445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180445
Log:
PR target/48851
* inclhack.def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49316
Graham Reed changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greed at pobox dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey 2011-10-25 19:53:31
UTC ---
Bootstrapping and testing both look good with the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-25 19:17:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
See bug 50870
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50870
Bug #: 50870
Summary: [C++0x] ICE with decltype, operator->, and default
template arguments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50866
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
Bug #: 50869
Summary: ice in vt_expand_var_loc_chain
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-25 18:28:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Now, however, in the light of the second half of your message, I guess we
> should have another PR for the ICE on valid issue. Are you willing to open it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #9 from P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-25
18:24:22 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 25 18:24:19 2011
New Revision: 180441
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180441
Log:
PR c++/49996
* tree.c (stabilize_init): Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50866
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-25
18:24:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 25 18:24:28 2011
New Revision: 180442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180442
Log:
PR c++/50866
PR c++/41449
* semantics.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41449
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-25
18:24:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 25 18:24:28 2011
New Revision: 180442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180442
Log:
PR c++/50866
PR c++/41449
* semantics.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-25 18:08:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The arrow operator (vs, eg, +) seems also essential.
That makes sense to me, because the code could never be valid, so I would
suggest that the keyword is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-25 17:13:51 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak at ristioja dot ee wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25
> 16:37:48
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|WAIT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25 16:37:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Well, they are equivalent where they are both defined, or if you apply C99
> rules to infinite-precision integers. The problem here is that INT_MIN %
> -1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-25 16:18:12 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak at ristioja dot ee wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25
> 16:08:19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50868
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #7 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25 16:08:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> /* X % -Y is the same as X % Y. */
> (fold-const.c:fold_binary_loc) would probably be what's wrong here.
On the other hand
https://www.securecoding.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-25 15:55:28 UTC ---
Ah, I see your point - this is % 1 not % -1, so there does indeed seem to
be a bug here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-25 15:52:38 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee wrote:
> > What do you think is wrong? C1X makes explicit what was intended before
> > then: that both a/b and a%b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50868
Bug #: 50868
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 1x176.gcc in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to
build with LTO
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-25
15:45:10 UTC ---
To clarify: the reason why I'm asking a self-contained testcase from you is
that the way I quickly hacked what you filed myself, I got the static_assert
firing, but that's not a bug, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50867
Bug #: 50867
Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Jaak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak.randmets at cyber dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50822
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-25 15:04:19 UTC
---
Even with .weakref disabled in gas, gcc emits
=
which gas silently accepts, while Sun as does not. How is this supposed to
work?
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #4 from P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
--- Comment #3 from fate66260 at gmail dot com 2011-10-25 15:00:06 UTC ---
Thank you for your response.
wrong: allow_dereferencable
right: allow_operable
mpl::true_, mpl::false_ are included in
std::declval ...
The same result in the all cases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-10-25 14:56:55 UTC ---
What do you think is wrong? C1X makes explicit what was intended before
then: that both a/b and a%b have undefined behavior if the quotient is not
representable. (S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-25 14:48:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> A new regression bug, please.
OK. Bug 50866.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50866
Bug #: 50866
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_stmt, at
tree-cfg.c:4175
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #6 from basz 2011-10-25
14:45:29 UTC ---
yes - you're right. i got this note all wrong. thanks for the clarifications
and links!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-25
14:44:02 UTC ---
A new regression bug, please.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25 14:30:41
UTC ---
Compiled with clang 2.9, the code runs correctly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41844
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Bug #: 50865
Summary: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-25 14:09:09 UTC ---
Of course, my issue is totally independent from vituscze's problem.
It just caused the same ICE.
Should I open a new bug, or is it OK to continue to hijack this one?
Anyway, my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-25
14:09:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> condition_variable_any is a bit more confusing. it says that it must be called
> in 30.5.2.10, but 30.5.2.9 say it is undefined, if lock is called or not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #4 from basz 2011-10-25
13:51:45 UTC ---
the most recent document on C++0x i have is N3290. according to it it is so for
condition_variable (30.5.1.9 and 30.5.1.10), but description for wait() of
condition_variable_any is a bit more c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50861
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50861
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-25 13:48:17 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 25 13:48:10 2011
New Revision: 180430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180430
Log:
/cp
2011-10-25 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
--- Comment #15 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-25 13:48:17 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 25 13:48:10 2011
New Revision: 180430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180430
Log:
/cp
2011-10-25 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50864
Bug #: 50864
Summary: SFINAE bug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-25 13:21:06 UTC ---
Further reduced:
% < test.cpp
#include
struct KeyParams {
std::string hostname;
std::string username;
};
class SyncInternal
{
void SetPassphrase();
};
void SyncInter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-25 12:54:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 25612
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25612
chromium testcase
Here is the delta reduced chromium testcase:
% g++ -w -fpermissive test.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50863
Bug #: 50863
Summary: [4.7 Regression] [C++0x] list-initialization with
lambda fails to deduce constructor argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50861
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #1 from basz 2011-10-25
10:28:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 25611
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25611
patch fixing the problem
unlocking local mutex, before locking back user's lock solves the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
Bug #: 50862
Summary: deadlock in std::condition_variable_any
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-25
10:10:09 UTC ---
Thanks Markus, you are being helpful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49996
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-25 10:06:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> verify_gimple_stmt? Unlikely..
Yeah, it's unrelated. It's a dup of Bug 49996.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-25
09:50:51 UTC ---
verify_gimple_stmt? Unlikely..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-25 09:48:54 UTC ---
I spoke too soon. Unfortunately I've tested a wrong compiler.
I get this new ICE with your patch applied:
chrome/browser/sync/internal_api/sync_manager.cc: In member function ‘
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50775
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-25
09:22:19 UTC ---
Well, good ;) This one cannot be it, but the fix is essentially ready.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50858
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-25 09:19:16 UTC ---
Thanks Paolo.
The strange thing is, that I cannot reproduce the chromium build problem
anymore with the latest gcc.
So some commit must have "fixed" the build issue in the last f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50822
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50861
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50816
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-25
08:02:16 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 25 08:02:08 2011
New Revision: 180424
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180424
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50596
* tree-vect-stm
89 matches
Mail list logo
