http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
--- Comment #4 from Rolf Pfister pfister at pci dot uzh.ch 2011-10-31
07:38:01 UTC ---
Am 30.10.11 20:14, schrieb pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org:
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinskipinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-30
19:14:49 UTC ---
Signed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
--- Comment #2 from Jarryd Beck jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au 2011-10-31
07:42:54 UTC ---
That's a shame, and rather annoying. I read pages and pages of the standard to
try to understand this one. Do you know where this is explained?
I added a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50930
Bug #: 50930
Summary: [C++0x] Valid brace-or-equal-initializer of non-static
data member rejected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #56 from Jiangning Liu jiangning.liu at arm dot com 2011-10-31
07:48:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #54)
I tested with GCC 4.6.2 and the patch provided by Mikael Pettersson. It works
for -march=armv4t and -march=armv5t, but not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50930
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50926
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-10-31 08:24:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
That's a shame, and rather annoying. I read pages and pages of the standard to
try to understand this one. Do you know
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #57 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-10-31
08:32:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #56)
(In reply to comment #54)
I tested with GCC 4.6.2 and the patch provided by Mikael Pettersson. It
works
for -march=armv4t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50924
--- Comment #4 from fwi at inducks dot org 2011-10-31 08:43:23 UTC ---
Actually contrary to what I wrote my system is 64 bit (I clicked on edit on
the top right and somehow the system sent a message that I was starting to
write).
Still when I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 09:42:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25671
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25671
tentative patch
2011-10-31 Tom de Vries t...@codesourcery.com
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 10:02:38 UTC ---
Posted fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02782.html
Posted fix has been approved:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02787.html, but the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
--- Comment #4 from Jarryd Beck jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au 2011-10-31
10:07:04 UTC ---
I didn't realise that A(A) was a better match. I was thinking of C++ code
where you might write:
template typename T
A(const T t);
A(const A rhs);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-10-31 10:18:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I didn't realise that A(A) was a better match. I was thinking of C++ code
where you might write:
template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
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=50929
--- Comment #6 from Jarryd Beck jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au 2011-10-31
10:34:16 UTC ---
Yeah I understand now. Basically having a perfect forwarding constructor means
that I need a non-const constructor if I want my example to work as I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #58 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2011-10-31 10:45:43 UTC ---
I tested Jiangning Liu's latest patch. With it GCC 4.6.2 produces valid code
for -march=armv4t, -march=armv5t, -march=armv5te, -march=armv6, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
--- Comment #6 from Rolf Pfister pfister at pci dot uzh.ch 2011-10-31
11:01:33 UTC ---
Am 31.10.11 11:18, schrieb manu at gcc dot gnu.org:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#signed_overflow
Im not really convinced that the reason is the overflow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31
11:45:32 UTC ---
this is a duplicate of PR 46004
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50919
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46004
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jarrydb at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50919
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50931
Bug #: 50931
Summary: [avr] Support a 24-bit scalar integer mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50931
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #17 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 13:16:49
UTC ---
Thank you very much! This really helps and at least reveals something quite
strange with LTO. It falls over the __func__ member of one of the two
static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #18 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 13:37:33
UTC ---
Ah, wrong, native_cpu_up of course calls check_tsc_sync_source, which under
LTO can be inlined. So it's the same issues as PR50741, the patch from
there works
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
--- Comment #19 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 13:41:59
UTC ---
Bah, I checked against the patched compiler. Nope, with the unpatched
compiler both descriptor variables stay in the local_decls of native_cpu_up
after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50932
Bug #: 50932
Summary: inserting a gimple_call with gsi_insert_after creates
error in remove_unreachable_handler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50919
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 13:55:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created attachment 25672 [details]
patch
... regtests cleanly!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 14:03:56 UTC ---
Are these also the same bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
Yes, see PR50878 comment 11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50886
Probably,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50915
--- Comment #3 from Titu titu_senapati at yahoo dot com 2011-10-31 14:07:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You used --with-included-gettext, that's probably breaking things for you
(together with -nodefaultlibs I guess).
Anyway, 3.4.3 is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50933
Bug #: 50933
Summary: Wrongly regards BIND(C) types as incompatible
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50919
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31
14:41:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created attachment 25672 [details]
patch
Thanks for the patch!
The second one breaks the ABI, while the first one does not. So,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
Graham Reed greed at pobox dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greed at pobox dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50934
Bug #: 50934
Summary: Allocated address for new controlled object is offset
by 16 bytes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50935
Bug #: 50935
Summary: All slim LTO tests FAIL on 32-bit Solaris
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-10-31 16:06:41 UTC ---
using the patch of comment 8
in the example below I get
$ c++ -std=gnu++0x -c talias.cc
$ c++ -std=gnu++0x -c talias.cc -DALIAS
talias.cc: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-10-31 16:16:54 UTC ---
the example in comment 10 compiles fine if I add a move constructor
D(ATia) : a(ia) {}
or a by value constructor
D(AT ia) : a(ia) {}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50926
Dmitry dm.vl.ivanov at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50936
Bug #: 50936
Summary: Warnung: abstract method in non-abstract class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
Bug #: 50937
Summary: STAT option with ALLOCATE statement on large arrays
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50938
Bug #: 50938
Summary: x86 alloca adds 15 twice
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50938
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
--- Comment #6 from Graham Reed greed at pobox dot com 2011-10-31 17:53:18
UTC ---
This seems to be enough to trigger the ICE:
int _Unwind_RaiseException(void)
{
int code;
int (*personality) (void);
code=(*personality) ();
}
No flags
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #2 from fwi at inducks dot org 2011-10-31 18:15:57 UTC ---
With E=1.0D0 instead of E(N,N,N,N)=1.0D0
$ gfortran test.f90; for i in `seq -w 10 10 400`; do LANG=C ./a.out $i; done
Sucesfully allocated array of size 10 **4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 18:24:14
UTC ---
From the metadata, it seems you're using version 4.4.3, where the overflow
check when calculating the size to allocate was a bit stupid. Basically it did
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #4 from fwi at inducks dot org 2011-10-31 18:29:27 UTC ---
I'm using:
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
I've now tested the same program on a 64-bit CentOs machine
with 16-Gb RAM, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
--- Comment #7 from Anton Shterenlikht mexas at bristol dot ac.uk 2011-10-31
18:32:07 UTC ---
Yes, *without* files/patch-unwind-ia64.h.
I've built and installed gcc-4.7.0.20111029
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50932
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #6 from fwi at inducks dot org 2011-10-31 19:25:38 UTC ---
Has the bug been corrected in recent versions of gfortran, or do you really
mean it's OK that gfortran claims an array has been allocated when it really
has not been?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #123 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31
19:34:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 31 19:34:26 2011
New Revision: 180708
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180708
Log:
PR libstdc++/1773
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50917
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50920
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31
19:34:22 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 31 19:34:14 2011
New Revision: 180707
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180707
Log:
PR c++/50920
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-10-31 19:50:41 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 07:25:38PM +, fwi at inducks dot org wrote:
Has the bug been corrected in recent versions of gfortran, or do you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
--- Comment #7 from Rolf Pfister pfister at pci dot uzh.ch 2011-10-31
19:58:07 UTC ---
I wrote:
long x=2147483647;
ulong c;
for(c=0;c2147483648UL;c++)
{
lcdSendData(x--);
}
I tried this new variant with gcc (Ubuntu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #8 from fwi at inducks dot org 2011-10-31 20:17:51 UTC ---
I do not(In reply to comment #7)
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 07:25:38PM +, fwi at inducks dot org wrote:
Yes, the problem of integer overflow that Janne mentioned has
been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31
20:38:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I tried this new variant with gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.1-4ubuntu9) 4.4.1
With this version it works correctly. Also with avr-gcc this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50938
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-10-31 21:02:52 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 08:17:51PM +, fwi at inducks dot org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46328
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 21:03:49 UTC ---
For the code in comment #2, there is actually a problem with the 'class_ok'
attribute, which can be fixed with the following patchlet:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46328
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-31 21:51:22 UTC ---
One other thing that just occurred to me is that one might consider cleaning up
'gfc_extend_expr' by removing the 'real_error' argument and returning
{MATCH_YES, MATCH_NO,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50503
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50920
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01
02:09:04 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Nov 1 02:09:00 2011
New Revision: 180725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180725
Log:
PR debug/50869
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50939
Bug #: 50939
Summary: [C++0x] lambda expression causes ICE when lambda
captures const variable and odr-uses the variable in
function templates
Classification: Unclassified
71 matches
Mail list logo
