http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15241
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49862
Jie Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49862
--- Comment #2 from Jie Zhang 2012-03-09 05:54:30 UTC
---
Author: jiez
Date: Fri Mar 9 05:54:25 2012
New Revision: 185125
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185125
Log:
PR target/49862
* config/bfin/bfin.c (hwloop_opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536
olinchy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olinchy1983 at gmail dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536
Bug #: 52536
Summary: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #28 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-09
01:44:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Created attachment 26858 [details]
> Patch for the patch
Looks all fortran regressions gone away. I'll run full tests
on sh4-unknown-lunix-gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52532
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26853|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Savchenko 2012-03-08
23:27:15 UTC ---
Hello,
(In reply to comment #10)
> No, they aren't just like normal functions.
>
> Maybe you should read
> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/templates.html#faq-35.12
Thank y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52497
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://sourceware.org/ml/li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-08
22:31:24 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 8 22:31:19 2012
New Revision: 185114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185114
Log:
PR libstdc++/52433
* include/debug/safe_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52535
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34040
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52535
Bug #: 52535
Summary: SH Target: libfortran won't build for sub-targets
where DFmode is set to SFmode?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52527
Geir Johansen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
--- Comment #11 from Fons Rademakers
2012-03-08 21:16:57 UTC ---
Hi Andrew,
the source code now (r43307) uses explicit instantiation and should work on
Gentoo with all compiler versions and optimization levels.
If you want older versions to w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52534
Bug #: 52534
Summary: gcc doesn't detect incorrect expression in call to
va_start
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-08
21:05:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Hmm, I can't understand this (though I don't know all the details of the C++
> standard). If I'm writing class MyClass with public method Read, this is
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Savchenko 2012-03-08
20:44:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Looking at the preprocessed source I see that the member function template
> TStreamerInfo::ReadBuffer is declared in TStreamerInfo.h but only defined in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52465
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52533
Bug #: 52533
Summary: ice in remove_range_assertions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52469
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-08
19:36:53 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Mar 8 19:36:43 2012
New Revision: 185109
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185109
Log:
2012-03-08 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
--- Comment #2 from kaladhorn at me dot com 2012-03-08 19:33:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> OpenMP 3.1 or earlier releases don't cover Fortran 2003 nor 2008, so what you
> are trying to compile is not valid.
hmm that's true, I did not think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52532
Bug #: 52532
Summary: Many libgo tests fail with various linker errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52522
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler
2012-03-08 18:34:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> but I need to investigate whether this is a language or compiler problem.
It is a language problem. My initial thought that it could be a compiler
problem,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52482
--- Comment #3 from David Fang 2012-03-08
16:03:46 UTC ---
This build finished, using odcctools' as, but there are some test failures with
libitm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg00893.html
How can I get the failure details for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-08
15:48:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Assuming an implicit instantiation will happen is an incorrect.
... is an incorrect /assumption/ :)
(In reply to comment #7)
> Ok, thanks for clarificat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-08 15:19:36 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 8 15:19:32 2012
New Revision: 185103
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185103
Log:
PR target/52530
Revert:
2012-03-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Savchenko 2012-03-08
15:11:04 UTC ---
Ok, thanks for clarification. The problem is that I'm not a developer of this
program, I just maintain its package for Gentoo. To make things worse I can't
reproduce the build failu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
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=52530
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-03-08 15:06:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Ouch.
>
> Before the change, we always used "q" modifier for addresses, only in two
> special cases we emitted "l". This "q" modifier forced DImode address even f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-08
14:42:58 UTC ---
It's not a bug though, since you're expecting behaviour which is not guaranteed
and never has been guaranteed.
Why does it matter? If you have another file where you suppress impli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
Andrew Savchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bircoph at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
Bug #: 52531
Summary: Compilation fails with polymorphic dummy argument and
OpenMP
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-03-08 13:49:52
UTC ---
Ouch.
Before the change, we always used "q" modifier for addresses, only in two
special cases we emitted "l". This "q" modifier forced DImode address even for
SImode operands, avoiding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
Bug #: 52530
Summary: [4.8 regression] Many 64-bit execution failures on
Solaris 10/11 with Sun as
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52526
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52469
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid, wrong-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #26 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-08
11:16:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 26855
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26855
unworked .s file associated_4_bad.s
I've attached .s files against gfortran.dg/associated_4.f90 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52496
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-08
11:14:11 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Mar 8 11:14:05 2012
New Revision: 185100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185100
Log:
PR target/52496
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-08
11:13:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 26854
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26854
worked .s file associated_4_good.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #24 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-08
11:11:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Kaz, if you have some time, could you try it out in your setup, too please?
On trunk revision 185088, for sh4-unknown-linux-gnu, the result of
compare_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52529
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-08
09:28:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A().foo(x);
> Should be:
> A().template foo(x);
This is a FAQ
http://womble.decadent.org.uk/c++/template-faq.html#disambiguation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52529
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-03-08 08:50:59 UTC ---
The compiler is correct to reject your example FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD.
In FIRST and THIRD you are effectively asking to deduce T from
template long foo(typename T::X *x);
which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52529
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52529
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-03-08
08:25:48 UTC ---
A().foo(x);
Should be:
A().template foo(x);
50 matches
Mail list logo
