http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54964
Ami Fischman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54952
Michele Galante changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://sourceware.org/bugzi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-18
07:47:15 UTC ---
This seems related to pr48636. Could you try the patch in comment #20:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28456 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Bug #: 54967
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:55
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54968
Bug #: 54968
Summary: spurious constexpr error,
20_util/tuple/comparison_operators/35480_neg.cc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
Bug #: 54969
Summary: Bitfield test not optimised at -Os.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
Bug #: 54970
Summary: Missing DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer in debuginfo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-18
08:45:04 UTC ---
I think this is just the standard copy-header not running at -Os issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-18
08:55:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28478
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28478
gcc48-pr54970.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28478|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
Bug #: 54971
Summary: SRA pessimizes debug info by not creating debug stmts
for fields without replacements
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*86*-*-*|i?86-*-*
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Loader 2012-10-18
09:56:36 UTC ---
Re copy-header: adding -ftree-ch to the command line does not improve the code.
Replacing the bitwise test 'f & 1' with a numeric test 'f < 27', gcc -Os
optimises properly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54959
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2012-10-18
10:15:37 UTC ---
i_6 = (intptr_t) &MEM[(void *)&x + 4B];
j_7 = (intptr_t) &y;
_8 = i_6 == j_7;
forwprop will call fold with (intptr_t) &MEM[(void *)&x + 4B] == (intptr_t) &y
But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-18
10:19:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> i_6 = (intptr_t) &MEM[(void *)&x + 4B];
> j_7 = (intptr_t) &y;
> _8 = i_6 == j_7;
>
> forwprop will call fold with (intptr_t) &MEM[(vo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-18
10:29:50 UTC ---
Yep, this is exactly the patch I have right now. It passed testing/bootstrap.
Will post to ML today for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-18
10:39:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > This is called by default_tree_diagnostic_starter FWIW; perhaps lto1 needs
> > its
> > own implementation of this?
>
> Maybe yes. LTO should prin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-10-18
10:40:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > > This is called by default_tree_diagnostic_starter FWIW; perhaps lto1
> > > needs its
> > > own implementation of thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #3 from Siarhei Siamashka
2012-10-18 10:47:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> void combine_conjoint_xor_ca_float ()
> {
> combine_channel_t j = pd_combine_conjoint_xor, k =
> pd_combine_conjoint_xor;
> a[0] = k (0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-18 10:58:56 UTC ---
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
>
> --- Comment #3 from Siarhei Siamashka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
Bug #: 54972
Summary: O2 breaks something in 4.6.3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2012-10-18 11:25:00
UTC ---
lzo_gcc_test.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
lzo_gcc_test.cpp:44:44: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
lzo_gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
11:31:59 UTC ---
Apparently you didn't read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
Before reporting that GCC compiles your code incorrectly,
compile it with gcc -Wall -Wextra and see whether this sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-18
11:38:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> We stream the expanded location and allocate new line-map entries at LTO
> read time.
Where?
I guess this precludes any knowledge of what is inc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov 2012-10-18
11:38:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 28481
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28481
Another testcase
Testcase which demonstrates more issues.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #3 from Seva Potapov 2012-10-18 11:46:19
UTC ---
thanks for input guys, but for some reason I don't get same warnings as you:
$ g++-4.6 -Wall -Wextra lzo_gcc_test.cpp -llzo2
lzo_gcc_test.cpp:27:5: warning: unused parameter ‘argc’ [-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
Brendan Chandler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bren at ragh dot us
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-10-18
11:54:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 28482
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28482
Candidate patch.
Could you both please test this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
12:01:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> You need -Wstrict-aliasing=2.
And -O2
If the optimization passes don't run then they can't produce warnings.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #6 from Seva Potapov 2012-10-18 12:07:40
UTC ---
thanks, guys, it seems that -Wstrict-aliasing=2 is not part of -Wall or -Wextra
i'll keep that in mind next time I encounter "bug" with gcc :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Bug #: 54973
Summary: [bugzilla] make "Before reporting a bug" notice more
prominent
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-10-18
12:51:28 UTC ---
If you attach a mockup, I can easily write the corresponding code.
This new big notice should only be visible to users with no privileges, right?
I guess that all users with editbu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Bug #: 54974
Summary: [ARM] Incorrect placement of constant pools
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
13:00:34 UTC ---
I was assuming it would be visible to everyone because it's harmless and can be
ignored (I'm sure many users will still ignore it!) but if other privileged
users don't want to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
--- Comment #1 from Mans Rullgard 2012-10-18 13:00:48
UTC ---
Created attachment 28484
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28484
Hack patch
This hack patch validates the analysis. A proper fix probably looks different.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
13:26:49 UTC ---
Here's a rubbishy mock up misusing and an existing CSS class, but it
makes it much easier to notice
http://www.kayari.plus.com/gcc/enter_bug.cgi-1.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54975
Bug #: 54975
Summary: [C++11] cv-qualifiers of typedef-name are ignored in
lambda expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-18
13:35:05 UTC ---
>From quick skimming of tree-sra.c, I'd say we could add another bool flag like
grp_to_be_replaced (say grp_to_be_debug_replaced), and in the else block of
if (allow_replaceme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-10-18
13:37:50 UTC ---
If everybody is happy with this mockup, I can push it live later today. Does it
need any formal approval?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
--- Comment #4 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-10-18 13:39:30 UTC ---
gcc version 4.8.0 20121018 (experimental) - which includes revision 192548 -
compiles this example correctly.
It also fixes http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #5 from swalter at lexmark dot com 2012-10-18 13:41:13 UTC ---
Thanks for looking into this, Richard. I should have mentioned that you'll
need to build with optimization turned on.
Expected behavior:
test.c built with -O -fno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
13:48:34 UTC ---
I'm certainly not able to approve the change, it'll need some kind of
agreement from the lead maintainers, which is why I raised it on the mailing
list. I don't know if anyo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53181
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-18
14:45:00 UTC ---
In the case of wrong_string, fold_comparison (called from cp_build_binary_op
via fold_if_not_in_template) cannot fold the comparison to a constant: base0 !=
base1. Most likely t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-18
15:42:22 UTC ---
Hmm, the fix isn't enough:
int
main (void)
{
int x = 30;
int y = 31;
int *p = &x + 1;
int *q = &y;
return p == q;
}
$ gcc -O2 pr54945.c && ./a.out ; echo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14430
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-18
15:51:56 UTC ---
Yeah, the #c9 testcase definitely isn't valid C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #12 from gcc at robbertkrebbers dot nl 2012-10-18 15:59:00 UTC ---
What do you mean by invalid? It is certainly not undefined behavior. The
pointer "&x + 1" is allowed by (6.5.6p8 of C11), and the equality operator
should behave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54976
Bug #: 54976
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr47975.c (internal compiler
error)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29633
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32322
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29633
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-18 17:02:21 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 18 17:02:10 2012
New Revision: 192570
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192570
Log:
2012-10-18 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29633
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-10-18
17:09:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Oct 18 17:09:13 2012
New Revision: 192571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192571
Log:
2012-10-18 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54977
Bug #: 54977
Summary: example3 not vectorized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-18
17:37:25 UTC ---
I already have a work-in-progress patch based on your suggestions that
works for the testcase but need to think a bit more about less obvious
cases that might happen. However,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54978
Bug #: 54978
Summary: Add ability to provide vectorized functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
Arunprasad changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ararunprasad at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-10-18 18:24:42
UTC ---
Created attachment 28486
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28486
another testcase
This ICE seems to happen quite often when testing with 'random' flags...
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54930
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
18:30:40 UTC ---
patch posted for review http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01737.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-18
19:01:34 UTC ---
The ICE appears at revision 192538 and requires gcc to be configured with
--enable-checking=yes (default). I don't see it for gcc configured with
--enable-checking=releas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54830
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-18 19:24:36
UTC ---
Created attachment 28487
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28487
Reduced test case
This is the reduced test case. It shows that there are actually two redundan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54830
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-10-18
19:43:02 UTC ---
The test case started failing with r189790:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-07/msg00695.html
That patch merely enabled insn splitting at -O0, so I suspect it exposed a
latent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54979
Bug #: 54979
Summary: no warning for useless comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54979
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54501
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-18 22:48:49 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 18 22:48:35 2012
New Revision: 192592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192592
Log:
/cp
2012-10-18 Paolo Carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54501
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
-object
--enable-linker-build-id --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-plugin
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --with-tune=generic
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121018 (experimental) [trunk revision 192560] (GCC)
$ g++ -flto -fpreprocessed -c 1.ii -o 1.o
$ g++ -flto -O1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-18
23:05:38 UTC ---
192502 OK
$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc_current_192502/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/lto-wrappe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54981
Bug #: 54981
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Different code generated with /
without `-g'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54906
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-10-18
23:46:04 UTC ---
I am leaving this PR open while I address the corner case presented by Jakub
somewhere in this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01763.html
...though te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-18
23:51:33 UTC ---
more reduced
$ cat 1.ii
extern "C" class A
{
};
template < int (*t_parser) () > class B
{
virtual int parse ()
{
A a;
t_parser ();
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-19
00:08:54 UTC ---
and more
$ cat 1.ii
class A
{
};
template < int (*t_parser) () > class B
{
virtual int parse ()
{
A a;
t_parser ();
}
};
extern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #5 from Siarhei Siamashka
2012-10-19 00:17:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> In the above case you probably want big_function_a to have all
> calls inlined. You can then conveniently use the flatten attribute:
>
> void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54982
Bug #: 54982
Summary: Uninitialised variable store_flag in
tree-ssa-loop-im.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
--- Comment #40 from Arunprasad 2012-10-19
06:41:04 UTC ---
Thank you.Is there any way to find it from nm output.?
95 matches
Mail list logo
