http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60622
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60622
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
BTW you can also use the following switch to display more info:
% readelf -SW test.o
There are 16 section headers, starting at offset 0x5a0:
Section Headers:
[Nr] Name TypeA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60621
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Some things that help:
-fabi-version=0
-fwhole-program (so it knows emplace_back won't be used anywhere else, and it
can inline it and remove the unneeded paths)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44495
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56704
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37110
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51114
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58168
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48368
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16063
--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard ---
Posted a patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01198.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60621
--- Comment #2 from marc at kdab dot com ---
Yes, that helps a bit, but emplace_back still generates larger code than the
corresponding rvalue-push_back. Considering that the latter also needs to
generate the implicitly defined move ctor for S, thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess it is not a big deal to do:
save_growing_size = obstack_object_size (&obstack);
+ save_growing_value = NULL;
if (save_growing_size > 0)
save_growing_value = obstack_finish (&obstack);
to wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Mar 23 11:30:57 2014
New Revision: 208771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208771&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/60601
* bb-reorder.c (fix_up_fall_thru_edges
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Mar 23 11:31:36 2014
New Revision: 208772
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/60601
* bb-reorder.c (fix_up_fall_thru_edges
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60624
Bug ID: 60624
Summary: creation of working linux sparc32 kernel fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60623
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The hppa-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt file hasn't been updated since 2012.
Could you run "make new-abi-baseline && make check-abi" and see if that solves
it.
If so, we'll need the new baseline file checked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60543
--- Comment #8 from Sarantis Pantazis ---
Created attachment 32430
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32430&action=edit
Compilation logs and installation workflow
++ --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140323 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60543
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Thank you for the fast response and effort. I have installed gcc from svn
> but the results are still the same. Perhaps I mis-installed something?
> Attached you will find the logs and the installati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60623
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Mar 23 15:12:38 2014
New Revision: 208774
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60623
* config/abi/post/hppa-linux-gnu/baseline_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60623
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
((always_inline))
{
return U;
}
// no error, although this is a fn definition, too
static int Baz(bool x) __attribute__((always_inline))
{
return x ? Bar<5>() : Bar<42>();
}
};
g++ -c 20140323-force_inline.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60625
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
For function definitions (nothing to do with templates) the attribute has to
come at the beginning, not at the end. Move it right before 'static' and it
will compile.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60625
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Or somewhere else before the function name, ie. as part of the
declaration-specifiers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60624
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60625
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Thanks. It's then an inconsistency, right? Because the non-template fn def
didn't trigger the error while the template version did so.
Moreover, the error message is misleading, because it said attr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60624
--- Comment #2 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
Created attachment 32431
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32431&action=edit
shell script to compile toolchain and kernel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60624
--- Comment #3 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
same problem exist with gcc 4.8 git branch:
Linux version 3.13.6 (wbx@kop-brodkorbw) (gcc version 4.8.3 20140317
(prerelease) (GCC) ) #19 Sun Mar 23 19:23:11 CET 2014
bootconsole [earlyprom0] enabled
ARCH
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56038
--- Comment #12 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
(In reply to tim.lebedkov from comment #11)
> Qt 5.2.1 cannot be build in 32 bit with mingw-w64 4.8.2 because of this bug.
> Why is it not fixed?
A fix for this issue was applied in the intrin.h of ming
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59912
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60626
Bug ID: 60626
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with pointer to function with auto
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60627
Bug ID: 60627
Summary: [c++1y] ICE in explicit template instantiation
containing auto parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60628
Bug ID: 60628
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE initializing
array of auto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60628
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.0, 4.5.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60629
Bug ID: 60629
Summary: [c++11] ICE initializing array of function pointers
with auto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60629
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49358
--- Comment #3 from Václav Zeman ---
And still a problem with gcc version 4.8.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.1-10ubuntu9).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60543
--- Comment #11 from Sarantis Pantazis ---
Yes, I did; I used "make clean" first (also "rm *.o *.f90 *.s" in the main
folder to clean up the files generated by -save-temps).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60543
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Yes, I did; I used "make clean" first (also "rm *.o *.f90 *.s" in the main
> folder to clean up the files generated by -save-temps).
Did you update the compiler name in your makefile? I have just be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55117
--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Preliminary patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00150.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60630
Bug ID: 60630
Summary: FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/literals/types.cc (test
for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #36 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Looks Good! I will commit the change in Comment #34 soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Mar 24 00:29:43 2014
New Revision: 208780
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-23 Dominique d'Humieres
PR libfortran/60128
* gfort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58015
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 24 00:32:41 2014
New Revision: 208781
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208781&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/59313
PR libfortran/58015
* gfortran.dg/erf_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Mar 24 00:32:41 2014
New Revision: 208781
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208781&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/59313
PR libfortran/58015
* gfortran.dg/erf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #7 from Damian Rouson ---
I assume the ICE below is related to this PR, but the argument in this case is
an array. Should I generate a separate PR?
$ cat parse_command_line.f90
module parse_command_line
implicit none
contains
f
48 matches
Mail list logo
