[Bug fortran/54382] New: gfortran show_locus: Invalid read of size 4

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54382 Bug #: 54382 Summary: gfortran show_locus: Invalid read of size 4 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug lto/45475] target use in libcpp breaks LTO bootstrap

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45475 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juhani.viherakoski at gmail

[Bug lto/54380] Lto bootstrap fails on i686-pc-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54380 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug lto/54380] Lto bootstrap fails on i686-pc-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54380 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-26 23:50:36 UTC --- This is the attribute target causing issues with LTO.

[Bug c++/53958] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] set_slot_part and canon_value_cmp using 90% of compile time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53958 --- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-26 23:41:41 UTC --- Created attachment 28088 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28088 Somewhat reduced, preprocessed test case On x86_64, compile with: $ ./cc1plus -m32 -quiet -ftime-

[Bug c/54381] New: -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess refers to "destination" for strncmp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54381 Bug #: 54381 Summary: -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess refers to "destination" for strncmp Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug lto/54380] New: Lto bootstrap fails on i686-pc-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54380 Bug #: 54380 Summary: Lto bootstrap fails on i686-pc-linux-gnu Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority

[Bug libstdc++/54296] using the object in the map to erase element from the map crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-26 23:20:25 UTC --- And of course I concur with Francois about the weird line number: current 4.8.0 doesn't have that line of code at that line number, it looks like Dennis you are not using 4.8.0 but som

[Bug libstdc++/54296] using the object in the map to erase element from the map crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P3

[Bug c++/54379] New: Suggestion for type attribute similar to warn_unused_result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54379 Bug #: 54379 Summary: Suggestion for type attribute similar to warn_unused_result Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/54296] using the object in the map to erase element from the map crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-26 23:07:14 UTC --- Interestingly, however, I'm seeing a *very* similar valgrind error with 4.6.2 and 4.5.4 (which had the "old" implementation). Dennis, which is the oldest GCC version which worked fine

[Bug c++/53958] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] set_slot_part and canon_value_cmp using 90% of compile time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53958 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|set_slot_part and |[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression]

[Bug libstdc++/54102] generated html vs. utf8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54102 Gerald Pfeifer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libffi/53014] [4.8 Regression] libffi failures on mips64-linux-gnu with soft-float

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53014 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libffi/53014] [4.8 Regression] libffi failures on mips64-linux-gnu with soft-float

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53014 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-26 18:29:26 UTC --- Author: pinskia Date: Sun Aug 26 18:29:21 2012 New Revision: 190696 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190696 Log: 2012-08-26 Andrew Pinski PR libffi/53014

[Bug libstdc++/54376] incorrect complaint about redefinition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376 --- Comment #14 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-26 17:22:50 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Sun Aug 26 17:22:43 2012 New Revision: 190694 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190694 Log: 2012-08-26 Marc Glisse Paolo

[Bug c++/4970] vector::at not defined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4970 --- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-26 14:40:27 UTC --- Author: hjl Date: Sun Aug 26 14:40:22 2012 New Revision: 190689 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190689 Log: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opc

[Bug libstdc++/54297] [C++11] Segmentation fault with std::async and released shared state

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54297 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-26 14:09:20 UTC --- Author: redi Date: Sun Aug 26 14:09:12 2012 New Revision: 190687 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190687 Log: PR libstdc++/54297 * src/c++11/future.cc (

[Bug libstdc++/54376] incorrect complaint about redefinition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2

[Bug libstdc++/54297] [C++11] Segmentation fault with std::async and released shared state

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54297 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-26 13:49:51 UTC --- Author: redi Date: Sun Aug 26 13:49:44 2012 New Revision: 190685 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190685 Log: PR libstdc++/54297 * src/c++11/future.cc (

[Bug target/54378] code bloat for long << shifts

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54378 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/54378] New: code bloat for long << shifts

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54378 Bug #: 54378 Summary: code bloat for long << shifts Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severit

[Bug libstdc++/54376] incorrect complaint about redefinition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|jason at gcc

[Bug libstdc++/54296] using the object in the map to erase element from the map crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug libstdc++/54296] using the object in the map to erase element from the map crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-26 12:37:50 UTC --- In current mainline line # is 1496.

[Bug libstdc++/54296] using the object in the map to erase element from the map crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/54296] using the object in the map to erase element from the map crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296 --- Comment #2 from François Dumont 2012-08-26 10:55:43 UTC --- I will have a closer look but what I can say for the moment is that the tested source code doesn't seem to match the latest trunk state, the line numbers don't match. Can you have a

[Bug c/44519] improve message for missing ";" after struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44519 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yuri at tsoft dot com --- Comment #4 fr

[Bug c++/39281] Error message 'multiple types in one declaration' need to be reworded

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39281 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/44519] improve message for missing ";" after struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44519 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/39281] Error message 'multiple types in one declaration' need to be reworded

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39281 Cedders changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cklists at gn dot apc.org --- Comment #1 from C

[Bug libstdc++/54376] incorrect complaint about redefinition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376 --- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-26 09:46:14 UTC --- Thanks. I say, lets go with Marc's solution, both mainline and branch. Marc, can you test it?

[Bug fortran/41093] memory leaks with gfc_namespace

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41093 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|mikael at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot |

[Bug fortran/38113] on warning/error: skip whitespaces, move position marker to actual variable name

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38113 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-26 09:20:16 UTC --- Unassigning.

[Bug fortran/38113] on warning/error: skip whitespaces, move position marker to actual variable name

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38113 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|mikael at gcc dot g

[Bug fortran/38536] ICE with C_LOC in resolve.c due to not properly going through expr->ref

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38536 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|mikael at gcc dot g

[Bug go/52583] Several new go testsuite failues on Solaris

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583 --- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-26 08:41:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) > The problem resurfaced again on alpha [1]: And on mips64.

[Bug libstdc++/54376] incorrect complaint about redefinition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376 --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-26 07:54:41 UTC --- Created attachment 28087 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28087 Alternate solution What about this (completely untested) other solution? (reindentation is needed aft

[Bug go/52583] Several new go testsuite failues on Solaris

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583 --- Comment #24 from Uros Bizjak 2012-08-26 07:53:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #16) > > I think that the problems with the log test should be fixed now. > > The problem resurfaced again on alpha [1]: Comment 11 ha

[Bug go/52583] Several new go testsuite failues on Solaris

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583 --- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak 2012-08-26 06:59:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > I think that the problems with the log test should be fixed now. The problem resurfaced again on alpha [1]: --- FAIL: log.TestAll (0.26 seconds) :0