[Bug target/54079] __builtin_ia32_palignr128 can't be called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54079 Uros Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/43663] Can't take a const-ref to a bit field

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43663 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/43663] Can't take a const-ref to a bit field

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43663 --- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-11 02:34:39 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Oct 11 02:34:32 2012 New Revision: 192347 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192347 Log: 2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini

[Bug c++/43663] Can't take a const-ref to a bit field

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43663 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/54373] [4.7/4.8 Regression]: build fails for mmix-knuth-mmixware libobjc GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54373 --- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11 01:38:52 UTC --- Related configury bits committed on trunk; will keep PR open until tested and fixed for 4.7 as well.

[Bug target/54373] [4.7/4.8 Regression]: build fails for mmix-knuth-mmixware libobjc GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54373 --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11 01:36:30 UTC --- Author: hp Date: Thu Oct 11 01:36:24 2012 New Revision: 192345 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192345 Log: PR target/54373 * configure.a

[Bug c++/54216] Missing diagnostic for ill-formed anonymous enum declarations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54216 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/29018] empty enum accepted

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29018 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|gcc-

[Bug c++/54897] New: [4.8 Regression]: 23_containers/bitset/45713.cc (test for excess errors)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897 Bug #: 54897 Summary: [4.8 Regression]: 23_containers/bitset/45713.cc (test for excess errors) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Stat

[Bug target/54602] [SH] Register pop insn not put in rts delay slot

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602 --- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-10 23:24:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > > I don't know the history about it. I can only imagine that some > system could assume some banked regs will be not clobbered with > their exception

[Bug libstdc++/54847] --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes doesn't find the function nanosleep() on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 --- Comment #47 from Jo

[Bug c/54896] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Some optimization slowness with GCC 4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||alias, compile-time-hog

[Bug target/54602] [SH] Register pop insn not put in rts delay slot

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602 --- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-10-10 22:44:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Kaz, could you please also have a pre-look at this? I might be missing > something... Looks reasonable to me, though I also might be missing som

[Bug target/54682] [SH] Replace constant loads with reg-reg copies

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54682 --- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-10 22:17:13 UTC --- Another thing that could be considered are T bit stores via the 'movt' insn. For example: movt r2 ! EX < something else; r2, T not modified> movt r4 ! EX

[Bug c/54896] Some optimization slowness with GCC 4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896 --- Comment #2 from Tammy Hsu 2012-10-10 22:09:04 UTC --- Created attachment 28416 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28416 This can be used to generate BigData.c

[Bug c/54896] Some optimization slowness with GCC 4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

Старинные монеты

Сайт: http://www.tdsllc.us/web_media/ber.php E-mail: inku...@gmail.com Тел.: 7-911-924-47-78

[Bug target/54854] [avr] Deprecate and finally remove the -mshort-calls command line option

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54854 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/54896] New: Some optimization slowness with GCC 4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896 Bug #: 54896 Summary: Some optimization slowness with GCC 4.7.2 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/54895] the compiler treats '__cdecl' & '__stdcall' as the same.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-10 20:52:38 UTC --- Related to PR c++/2316. Those attributes are properly supported in C but not with fancy C++ features. I don't think they have a mangling, for instance.

[Bug libstdc++/54861] std::atomic_signal_fence(std::memory_order_seq_cst) issues unnecessary mfence

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54861 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod 2012-10-10 20:47:48 UTC --- Author: amacleod Date: Wed Oct 10 20:47:39 2012 New Revision: 192332 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192332 Log: 2012-10-10 Andrew MacLeod

[Bug c++/11858] Name lookup error ignored when instantiated from expression within sizeof() in template function parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11858 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-09-10 19:09:16 |2012-10-10 --- Comment #5 fro

[Bug c++/54895] the compiler treats '__cdecl' & '__stdcall' as the same.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895 Ozkan Sezer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sezeroz at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug c++/54080] [C++11] g++ crashes when compiling the following file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54080 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug c++/54895] the compiler treats '__cdecl' & '__stdcall' as the same.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895 --- Comment #1 from niXman 2012-10-10 19:53:48 UTC --- used i686-w64-mingw32

[Bug c++/54895] New: the compiler treats '__cdecl' & '__stdcall' as the same.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895 Bug #: 54895 Summary: the compiler treats '__cdecl' & '__stdcall' as the same. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/54079] __builtin_ia32_palignr128 can't be called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54079 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/11858] Name lookup error ignored when instantiated from expression within sizeof() in template function parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11858 --- Comment #4 from Kurt Stutsman 2012-10-10 19:39:12 UTC --- Still seeing this as of version 4.6.1.

[Bug c++/54015] problem in compiling Qgis source code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54015 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/53837] Unpacking variadic template parameters in a method parameter default value gives parse error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53837 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/53672] gcc/branches/cilkplus does not like C++ spawn (when optimized)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53672 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/53479] Control flow analysis reports warnings in switch over an enum class even if all possible values have their branches

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53479 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54894] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1286

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/54878] libgfortran issues found by the Coverity scanner

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54878 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-10-10 18:42:39 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Wed Oct 10 18:42:34 2012 New Revision: 192325 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192325 Log: 2012-10-10 Tobias Burnus PR f

[Bug c/54894] New: internal compiler error: in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1286

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894 Bug #: 54894 Summary: internal compiler error: in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1286 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version:

[Bug debug/54887] gdb test case failure with mi-var-rtti

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887 dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resol

[Bug tree-optimization/54877] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have real_cst in copy_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:335

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54877 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-10 17:47:19 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Oct 10 17:47:05 2012 New Revision: 192322 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192322 Log: PR tree-optimization/54877 * tr

[Bug c++/54893] New: unable to access volatile variable within relaxed transaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54893 Bug #: 54893 Summary: unable to access volatile variable within relaxed transaction Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug fortran/54881] [4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2016

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54881 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 17:33:41 UTC --- Here is a variant of the test case in comment 3, which for some strange reason fails also with 4.7: implicit none type treeNode end type class(treeNo

[Bug c++/54890] Incorrect SFINAE Rejection

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54890 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|paolo.car

[Bug fortran/54881] [4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2016

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54881 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 17:31:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > 2) The error message in comment 3, which only happens with trunk (and > therefore > is a regression). This can be fixed by the following:

[Bug debug/54887] gdb test case failure with mi-var-rtti

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Arnez 2012-10-10 17:14:32 UTC --- Right. I've checked that the new upstream gcc with r192285 fixes the problem. Thanks! BTW, while investigating this I wondered why g++ wraps all locals in a lexical block in

[Bug fortran/54881] [4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2016

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54881 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assig

[Bug c++/54890] Incorrect SFINAE Rejection

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54890 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unas

[Bug target/54892] New: [4.7 Regression], ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54892 Bug #: 54892 Summary: [4.7 Regression], ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug c++/54890] Incorrect SFINAE Rejection

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54890 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/54887] gdb test case failure with mi-var-rtti

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887 --- Comment #1 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 15:47:47 UTC --- I think r192285 already solve the problem. Could you help verify that? Thanks, Dehao

[Bug c++/54891] New: [C++11] lambda-expression and explicit type conversion (cast notation)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54891 Bug #: 54891 Summary: [C++11] lambda-expression and explicit type conversion (cast notation) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status

[Bug c++/54890] New: Incorrect SFINAE Rejection

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54890 Bug #: 54890 Summary: Incorrect SFINAE Rejection Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug lto/54794] [4.8 regression] tree code '�F Hc���' is not supported in LTO streams

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54794 Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolutio

[Bug lto/54794] [4.8 regression] tree code '�F Hc���' is not supported in LTO streams

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54794 --- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-10 15:12:19 UTC --- creduc'ing it was very slow. r192289 FAIL r192295 PASS probably r192293 fix it

[Bug tree-optimization/54889] New: [4.8 Regression] Revision 191983 gives compfail for 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 when use -O3 -mavx

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889 Bug #: 54889 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Revision 191983 gives compfail for 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 when use -O3 -mavx Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug c/54888] GCC with -Os is faster than -O3 on some AVR code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54888 --- Comment #1 from mojo at world3 dot net 2012-10-10 14:51:26 UTC --- Created attachment 28412 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28412 Compiler output with -O3

[Bug c/54888] New: GCC with -Os is faster than -O3 on some AVR code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54888 Bug #: 54888 Summary: GCC with -Os is faster than -O3 on some AVR code Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.3.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug debug/54887] New: gdb test case failure with mi-var-rtti

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887 Bug #: 54887 Summary: gdb test case failure with mi-var-rtti Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major P

[Bug lto/54885] [4.8 Regression] lto/profiledbootstrap broken

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54885 --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2012-10-10 14:00:53 UTC --- Configured with: markus@x4 gcc_build_dir % ~/gcc/configure --disable-werror --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-checking=release --with-build-config=slim

[Bug c++/53122] internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:15750

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53122 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/53122] internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:15750

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53122 --- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 13:25:40 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Wed Oct 10 13:25:34 2012 New Revision: 192312 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192312 Log: 2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini

[Bug fortran/54884] [4.8 Regression] Externally used PRIVATE module procedure wrongly marked as TREE_PUBLIC()=0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-10 13:24:42 UTC --- > Well, I guess the point is that Dominique claimed that the bug reported by > Andrew is a regression of your commit for PR54221: The link errors disappear if I revert

[Bug c++/53122] internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:15750

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53122 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 12:55:30 UTC --- This is fixed in mainline. I'm adding the testcase and closing the PR.

[Bug c++/51602] Segmentation fault: internal compiler error on error message (I think)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51602 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54886] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/pr(42521|42771).c (internal compiler error) due to revision 192219

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/54886] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/pr(42521|42771).c (internal compiler error) due to revision 192219

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886 Bug #: 54886 Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/pr(42521|42771).c (internal compiler error) due to revision 192219 Classification: Unclassified Pro

[Bug fortran/54874] [OOP] polymorphic allocation with SOURCE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resol

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 11:47:20 UTC --- Better reverting the LWG 2141-related bits. Only those of course!

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #23 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-10 11:45:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > The patch is already in, of course. In hindsight, I think we shouldn't have > bundled the SFINAE bits with addressing LWG 2141, which, I realize now,

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 11:43:00 UTC --- I'm taking care of these reversion bits: just few lines in sfinae_friendly_1.cc, besides the removal of std::decay and that line in typedefs-1.cc.

[Bug fortran/54874] [OOP] polymorphic allocation with SOURCE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874 --- Comment #14 from Salvatore Filippone 2012-10-10 11:36:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) > Salvatore, I would say we can close this PR (as a duplicate of PR54784), > unless > the runtime error with 4.6 on darwin is a regression (whi

[Bug middle-end/54879] gcc/combine.c:12018: warning: comparison always false due to limited range of data type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54879 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/54862] [4.8 Regression] error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions in simplify-rtx.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54862 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 11:09:32 UTC --- I see. Let's do that at your ease, then. But let's do it ;)

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #20 from Daniel Krügler 2012-10-10 11:08:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) It is more than that, because *my* own test-cases rely on the decay assumption.

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 11:06:26 UTC --- If it's just matter of removing the std::decay call and tweaking that testcase, I can do it now. Otherwise, I would say, please send a patch...

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #18 from Daniel Krügler 2012-10-10 11:04:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > The patch is already in, of course. In hindsight, I think we shouldn't have > bundled the SFINAE bits with addressing LWG 2141, which, I realize now, is

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 11:01:59 UTC --- The patch is already in, of course. In hindsight, I think we shouldn't have bundled the SFINAE bits with addressing LWG 2141, which, I realize now, is still in flux. At least w

[Bug c++/53540] C++11: using fails to be equivalent to typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540 Dodji Seketeli changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/51109] bdver1 scheduler state machine too large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51109 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-10 10:55:59 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Oct 10 10:55:54 2012 New Revision: 192305 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192305 Log: PR target/51109 * config/i386/b

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #16 from Daniel Krügler 2012-10-10 10:55:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > So we now have: > > common_type::type -> const int& > common_type::type -> int > > ? > > If we are going with this resolution, I think the 1 argument

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 10:44:57 UTC --- Daniel: yes, please, if you could take care of that it would be great.

[Bug c++/53540] C++11: using fails to be equivalent to typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540 --- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-10-10 10:44:02 UTC --- Author: dodji Date: Wed Oct 10 10:43:53 2012 New Revision: 192304 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192304 Log: PR c++/53540 - using fails to be equiva

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-10 10:43:22 UTC --- Why you believe it should "derive" from decay? It doesn't in C++11 and it doesn't in the proposed resolution of LWG 2141. Anyway, if you think there is something seriously wr

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #13 from Daniel Krügler 2012-10-10 10:42:20 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Thus, the library bits are done in mainline, right Daniel? In regard to std::common_type, yes. But while making std::common_type sfinae-friendly I searc

[Bug middle-end/54879] gcc/combine.c:12018: warning: comparison always false due to limited range of data type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54879 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-10 10:41:44 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Oct 10 10:41:39 2012 New Revision: 192303 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192303 Log: PR middle-end/54879 * combine.c

[Bug middle-end/54862] [4.8 Regression] error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions in simplify-rtx.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54862 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-10 10:40:42 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Oct 10 10:40:35 2012 New Revision: 192302 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192302 Log: PR middle-end/54862 * simplify-

[Bug fortran/54874] [OOP] polymorphic allocation with SOURCE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874 --- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 10:29:27 UTC --- Salvatore, I would say we can close this PR (as a duplicate of PR54784), unless the runtime error with 4.6 on darwin is a regression (which I currently can not check).

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug middle-end/54860] [4.8 Regression]: build fails when configuring libgfortran due to recent "attribute" changes in core gcc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860 --- Comment #18 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-10-10 10:25:13 UTC --- Author: dodji Date: Wed Oct 10 10:25:03 2012 New Revision: 192301 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192301 Log: PR middle-end/54860 - Make sure attrib

[Bug c++/53741] ICE on lambda calling static template member function with explicit template argument specification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53741 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/53741] ICE on lambda calling static template member function with explicit template argument specification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53741 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 10:15:58 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Wed Oct 10 10:15:51 2012 New Revision: 192298 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192298 Log: 2012-10-10 Paolo Carlini

[Bug c++/53741] ICE on lambda calling static template member function with explicit template argument specification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53741 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.7.2, 4.8.0 --- Comment #2 fro

[Bug lto/54885] [4.8 Regression] lto bootstrap broken with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54885 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2012-10-10 09:55:28 UTC --- markus@x4 libgcc % cat test.i int a; int fn1 () { if (a) return 0; } markus@x4 libgcc % /var/tmp/gcc_build_dir/./gcc/xgcc -B/var/tmp/gcc_build_dir/./gcc/ -O2 -c tes

[Bug lto/54885] [4.8 Regression] lto bootstrap broken with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54885 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0

[Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #28372|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug lto/54885] [4.8 Regression] lto bootstrap broken with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54885 --- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2012-10-10 09:46:01 UTC --- I've posted the wrong invocation, it should read: Starting program: /var/tmp/gcc_build_dir/gcc/xgcc (and not /var/tmp/gcc_build_dir/prev-gcc/xgcc). Anyway, the segfau

[Bug lto/54885] New: [4.8 Regression] lto bootstrap broken with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54885 Bug #: 54885 Summary: [4.8 Regression] lto bootstrap broken with -O3 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/51109] bdver1 scheduler state machine too large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51109 --- Comment #3 from GGanesh 2012-10-10 09:39:08 UTC --- Thanks a lot Uros, Venkat! -Original Message- From: ubizjak at gmail dot com [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:07 PM To: Gopalasubrama

[Bug target/51109] bdver1 scheduler state machine too large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51109 Uros Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/51109] bdver1 scheduler state machine too large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51109 --- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-10 09:37:21 UTC --- Author: vekumar Date: Wed Oct 10 09:19:11 2012 New Revision: 192296 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192296 Log: Fix for PR51109 Modified: trunk/

[Bug c++/51253] [C++11][DR 1030] Evaluation order (sequenced-before relation) among initializer-clauses in braced-init-list

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

  1   2   >