[Bug c++/16166] -Weffc++ finer granularity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-29 23:21:23 UTC --- I would keep the patches separate.

[Bug c++/53494] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with invalid initializer list

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-29 23:34:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) struct pair { pair(const char*, int) { } }; struct array_p { pair data[1]; }; array_p a = { { smile, 1 } };

[Bug c++/53494] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with invalid initializer list

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-29 23:36:02 UTC --- clang version 3.2 (trunk 155804) also rejects it: t.cc:11:18: error: no viable conversion from 'const char [6]' to 'pair'

[Bug debug/53453] darwin linker expects both AT_name and AT_comp_dir debug notes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53453 --- Comment #15 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-29 23:44:13 UTC --- Author: mrs Date: Tue May 29 23:44:09 2012 New Revision: 187994 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187994 Log: 2012-05-29 Jack

[Bug c++/10200] Weird clash with same names in different scopes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200 Matt Giuca eatmyshortz at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eatmyshortz at

[Bug debug/53453] darwin linker expects both AT_name and AT_comp_dir debug notes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53453 m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/53356] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_stmt, at tree-cfg.c:4258

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at redhat dot

[Bug c++/53524] New: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsupressable enum comparison warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524 Bug #: 53524 Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsupressable enum comparison warning Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug c++/53524] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsupressable enum comparison warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-30 01:53:24 UTC --- Further, the warning doesn't get suppressed even under -Wno-enum-compare. That is because it is not a compare; it is a conditional expression. Also I think

[Bug c++/53524] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsupressable enum comparison warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524 Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jyasskin at

[Bug target/52911] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc 4.7.0 (ppc32 e500mc) when compile a c file, after a lot of time, gcc failed and internal compiler error occurs.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52911 --- Comment #4 from zuogang zuogang at huawei dot com 2012-05-30 02:59:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) The testcase needs reduction. 1: save the attached file into test-gcc47-c.c,then cd the folder contain the C file; 2: gcc -Wall -W

[Bug preprocessor/53525] New: Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525 Bug #: 53525 Summary: Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug preprocessor/53525] Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525 jimis jimis at gmx dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/53524] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsupressable enum comparison warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524 Lawrence Crowl crowl at google dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crowl at google

[Bug preprocessor/53525] Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525 --- Comment #2 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-05-30 04:44:54 UTC --- According to valgrind major overhead is due to numerous calls of line-map.c:linemap_line_start() that actually allocate new line_maps. This happens because we are resetting

[Bug preprocessor/53525] Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525 --- Comment #3 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-05-30 04:52:20 UTC --- Another simple one that my eye caught but does not effect performance. Generally I don't get many things in macro.c, but am I correct to assume that the following stands?

[Bug preprocessor/53525] Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525 --- Comment #4 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-05-30 05:23:54 UTC --- Another hotspot higlighted by valgrind is the multitude of malloc/free() calls in comparison to the past. I'm attaching a slightly more intrusive patch that uses obstacks

[Bug preprocessor/53525] Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525 --- Comment #5 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-05-30 05:28:31 UTC --- Created attachment 27520 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27520 In macro.c:collect_args() use obstacks for virt_locs instead of malloc/realloc vectors.

[Bug preprocessor/53525] Performance regression due to enabling track-macro-expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525 --- Comment #6 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-05-30 05:31:03 UTC --- Created attachment 27521 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27521 Add some new obstack macros in libiberty.h.

<    1   2