http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-15
05:52:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Apr 15 05:52:51 2012
New Revision: 186464
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186464
Log:
2012-04-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40973
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-15
05:52:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Apr 15 05:52:51 2012
New Revision: 186464
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186464
Log:
2012-04-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991
Bug #: 52991
Summary: attribute packed broken on mingw32?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #11 from davidxl 2012-04-15 04:09:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > > are against it). I don't think there is any GCC contributor that is paid
> > > to
> > > improve GCC's diagnostics (am I wrong?).
> >
> > Right, but partiall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52699
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52699
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-15 02:14:45 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Apr 15 02:14:39 2012
New Revision: 186461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186461
Log:
2012-04-14 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52699
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-14 22:33:27 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Apr 14 22:33:22 2012
New Revision: 186456
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186456
Log:
2012-04-14 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52990
Bug #: 52990
Summary: bootstrap ia64 cross-compiler gcc (static C-only)
includes a broken libgcc.a due to libunwind
dependencies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52637
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52989
Bug #: 52989
Summary: Installation error on OS X (arm-eabi) cross-compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38299
--- Comment #8 from David O'Shea 2012-04-14
17:58:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Spoke too soon. Things just compiled slower and it took longer to get to the
same failure, I was fooled.As it is, you have to fall all the way back to
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-14
17:40:18 UTC ---
Slightly reduced testcase without
#include
using namespace std;
nullptr_t returns_nullptr_t()
{
__builtin_puts("returns_nullptr_t");
return nullptr;
}
int retur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-14
16:54:02 UTC ---
Patch bootstraps and passes regressions; all SPEC tests build cleanly. Will
submit today to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38299
David O'Shea changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.oshea at emulex dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
Bug #: 52988
Summary: std::async not executed on function returning
nullptr_t
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52987
Bug #: 52987
Summary: bogus expected ; before for undeclared type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-14
15:05:37 UTC ---
The following patch fixes both reduced test cases and appears to fix the SPEC
problems in PR52980 as well. Bootstrap/regression test in progress, and will
then do a complete set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52986
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52986
Bug #: 52986
Summary: x86_64 GCC 4.7.0 can't compile x86 GCC 4.6.2;
gtype-desc.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #31 from Alan Modra 2012-04-14 13:24:48
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Apr 14 13:24:43 2012
New Revision: 186453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186453
Log:
PR libstdc++/52839
* acinclude.m4 (_GLIBCXX_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-14
13:16:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> Thanks for sharing this. This broadens my perception of the issues
> contributors
> have with GCC. That said, it should be pos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-14
12:42:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > It is not *technically* hard. Anyone that knows C and a bit of C++ can fix
> > hundreds (if you know C++ well and have a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-14
12:24:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> It is not *technically* hard. Anyone that knows C and a bit of C++ can fix
> hundreds (if you know C++ well and have a some experience with the C++ parser,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-14
12:10:13 UTC ---
> > are against it). I don't think there is any GCC contributor that is paid to
> > improve GCC's diagnostics (am I wrong?).
>
> Right, but partially because it is a hard thing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52673
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
Bug #: 52985
Summary: Postincrement not applied after indexing ternary array
expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #50 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-14
10:53:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
> Created attachment 27155 [details]
> fix overload carets
>
> The patch that I am currently bootstrapping. I made a small change to the
> output. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
--- Comment #6 from Benedikt Schmidt 2012-04-14
08:37:00 UTC ---
Now it is clear, even to me. My personal conclusion from this is: Prefer T
const& instead of const T&.
Thank you,
Benedikt Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
34 matches
Mail list logo
