http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53748
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53759
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe 2012-06-25 07:57:25
UTC ---
posted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01559.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53752
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53754
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53756
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
Michal Malecki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ethouris at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53761
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53765
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-25
08:32:29 UTC ---
There's no need for an extension, the grammar allows
[[gnu::init_priority(200)]]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53752
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-25
08:44:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 27698
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27698
autoreduced testcase
We mangle an array with TYPE_DOMAIN [0, UINT_MAX], so it has UINT_MAX + 1
nu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53752
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53759
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-25
08:48:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 27699
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27699
gcc48-pr53759.patch
Sounds like an obvious typo in that change, the x, x, x alternative is already
e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53748
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-25
09:20:06 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef long long V __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
void
foo (int x, V *y)
{
*y = x ? ((V) { ~0UL, ~0UL }) : ((V) { 0LL, 0LL });
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53748
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-25
10:14:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 27700
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27700
gcc48-pr53748.patch
UNtested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53760
--- Comment #8 from Stas Sergeev 2012-06-25
10:29:40 UTC ---
I think gcc C could support it too by
some "pack_harder" attribute (and then not
allow pointers to such structs), but I've got
the point. :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53766
Bug #: 53766
Summary: ICE in build_binary_op when using pragma Suppress
(All_Checks)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53478
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-25
12:05:24 UTC ---
I have the patch in comment #2 in my tree since some time now and it works as
advertised without regression. However, If I have understood Ian Harvey's
answer in comp.lang.fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53767
Bug #: 53767
Summary: ICE deriving from class wide generic access parameter
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52900
Christopher Hite changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Christopher.Hite at partner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-25 13:25:47 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Jun 25 13:25:39 2012
New Revision: 188934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188934
Log:
gcc/
PR debug/53740
* df.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-25
13:28:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Is the following variant
...
> valid?
Looks valid - and with other compilers it does compile and run. What works in
gfortran is the following, which yiel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52900
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-25 13:33:33
UTC ---
This may be a dup for PR 53572. You can try its fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-25
13:39:29 UTC ---
In SCEV analysis we'd need to detect the pattern feeding the truncation
tem_3 = (int) result_2;
tem_4 = tem_3 + 2;
result_5 = (signed char) tem_4;
in interpret_rhs_expr - ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-06-25 13:45:09 UTC ---
The following test
character(len=2), parameter :: z(5) = ['af', 'bg', 'ch', 'di', 'ej']
type b
character :: y(5) = transfer('zyxwvutsrq', z)
end type
type(b) ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38172
Jörg Richter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-25 14:20:29 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Jun 25 14:20:19 2012
New Revision: 188935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188935
Log:
PR debug/53740
* df.h, df-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53488
Ai Azuma changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ai.azuma at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #11 from christophe.lyon at st dot com 2012-06-25 14:38:00 UTC ---
I have proposed a patch related to this problem some time ago, which received
no feedback:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01855.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-25
14:45:18 UTC ---
Patches for libstdc++ should be sent to the libstdc++ list as well as
gcc-patches. That's probably why you didn't get any feedback.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-25
14:50:10 UTC ---
Oh I see it isn't specific to libstdc++. You'll just have to push on the
gcc-patches list for review then. It helps if you describe the problem it
solves in detail, and confirm it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53759
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-25
14:53:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 25 14:52:59 2012
New Revision: 188937
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188937
Log:
PR target/53759
* config/i386/sse.md (sse_l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53759
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-25
14:56:22 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 25 14:56:17 2012
New Revision: 188938
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188938
Log:
PR target/53759
* config/i386/sse.md (sse_l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53759
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53572
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2012-06-25
15:07:18 UTC ---
OK, I will commit the fix as it is to mainline today and see if there are any
significant negative effects with V1 API on Mozilla. If so, I will try to
update lto-plugin to handle the v1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-06-25 15:16:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth 2012-06-25 14:55:41
> UTC ---
> I'm seeing SEGVs in i386-pc-solaris2.* bootstraps which a reghunt traced back
> to the same pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53202
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
15:18:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 25 15:17:59 2012
New Revision: 188940
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188940
Log:
PR c++/53202
* semantics.c (build_data_memb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53565
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
15:17:55 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 25 15:17:48 2012
New Revision: 188939
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188939
Log:
PR c++/53565
* pt.c (tsubst_omp_for_iterato
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48858
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-25
15:37:35 UTC ---
For a (vaguely) related issue, see PR 53478.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53202
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
15:41:18 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 25 15:41:13 2012
New Revision: 188941
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188941
Log:
PR c++/53202
* semantics.c (build_data_memb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53202
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53565
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus |[4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53650
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
Bug #: 53768
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Undefined references with boost
1.46/1.48/1.49
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-06-25 17:01:35 UTC ---
Insofar as it only issues warnings:
/tmp/cc4Lw5GR.ltrans1.ltrans.o:cc4Lw5GR.ltrans1.o:function vtable for
boost::exception_detail::clone_impl
> [clone .local.460]: warning: reloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
Bug #: 53769
Summary: [C11]: Macros __STDC_NO_THREADS__ / __STDC_NO_ATOMIC__
missing.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-25 17:12:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Gold is fine BTW.
It doesn't mean bfd ld shouldn't issue an error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53752
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
17:36:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> We mangle an array with TYPE_DOMAIN [0, UINT_MAX], so it has UINT_MAX + 1
> number of elements.
Well, since that's how we represent an array of length 0, we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
rbmj at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27468|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
--- Comment #5 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-06-25 18:19:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27702
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27702
Fixincludes rule to allow gcc/libgcov.c to compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
--- Comment #6 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-06-25 18:20:36 UTC ---
OK, so two new patches.
1. For gcc/gcov-io.c: Patch posted at [1] and attached to the bug.
2. For gcc/libgcov.c: Patch posted at [2], approved at [3], and attached to the
bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53457
--- Comment #7 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-06-25 18:23:02 UTC ---
Fixed with this (approved, but not committed) patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00382.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53378
--- Comment #10 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-06-25 18:25:11 UTC ---
This issue is resolved in this (approved, not committed) patch series here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00382.html, specifically
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-06-25 18:55:22 UTC ---
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, patrick.pelissier at gmail dot com wrote:
> When building a C program with -std=c11, GCC doesn't define
> __STDC_NO_THREADS__ & __STDC_NO_ATOMIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-25 19:06:32 UTC ---
Note that this PR is basically a duplicate of PR 41951, which contains a test
case analogous to the M2 case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53770
Bug #: 53770
Summary: Regression: incorrect line numbers in debug info since
4.5+
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53771
Bug #: 53771
Summary: inconsistent padding long double: mixture of 96 and
128
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf 2012-06-25 20:26:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I just received a message saying:
>
> "The problem with the BLAS testing programs sometimes not computing the
> machine
> epsilon correctly has been fixe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53770
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com 2012-06-25 20:29:05 UTC ---
I tested on 32bit Debian Wheezy, too, with stock 4.6.3, and everything was ok.
Another AMD64 Wheezy box w/ stock 4.6.3 showed the bug, with a minor variation:
when the condit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
20:37:18 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 25 20:37:14 2012
New Revision: 188953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188953
Log:
PR c++/52988
* typeck.c (decay_conversion):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
20:37:18 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 25 20:37:14 2012
New Revision: 188953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188953
Log:
PR c++/52988
* typeck.c (decay_conversion):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
20:37:30 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 25 20:37:25 2012
New Revision: 188954
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188954
Log:
PR c++/52988
* typeck.c (decay_conversion):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-25
20:39:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 25 20:39:47 2012
New Revision: 188955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188955
Log:
PR c++/52988
* typeck.c (decay_conversion):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53754
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53772
Bug #: 53772
Summary: Failed to combine load and jump on vtable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
Bug #: 53773
Summary: Vectorizer generates non-canonical multiplies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53774
Bug #: 53774
Summary: Reassociator generates non-canonical addition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre 2012-06-25
22:37:22 UTC ---
But what if a recent glibc version isn't used?
Would GCC still be able to compile the following code?
int main (void)
{
#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L && ! __STDC_NO_THREADS__
_T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-06-25 23:32:04 UTC ---
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> But what if a recent glibc version isn't used?
The standard describes cooperating language and library imp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53771
--- Comment #2 from john.chandler at alum dot mit.edu 2012-06-25 23:51:37 UTC
---
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> If you want to use REAL*16, upgrade the compiler and that has support for
> REAL*16.
Can the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53305
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-26
03:42:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 26 03:42:34 2012
New Revision: 188973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188973
Log:
PR c++/53498
PR c++/53305
* pt.c (tsubs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53498
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-26
03:42:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 26 03:42:34 2012
New Revision: 188973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188973
Log:
PR c++/53498
PR c++/53305
* pt.c (tsubs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53305
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-26
03:42:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 26 03:42:34 2012
New Revision: 188973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188973
Log:
PR c++/53498
PR c++/53305
* pt.c (tsubs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53545
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53305
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53498
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||squidbidness at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53498
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre 2012-06-26
05:17:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Such a test is not meaningful for documented incomplete support; in the
> absence of claims of conformance, __STDC_VERSION__ can only be interpreted
> as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53775
Bug #: 53775
Summary: Errors in libquadmath documentation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
88 matches
Mail list logo
