https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61374
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61375
Bug ID: 61375
Summary: ICE in int_cst_value at -O3 in tree-ssa pass when
compiling a reference to an __int128 value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61374
Bug ID: 61374
Summary: string_view::operator string() is buggy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
These are in fact two different issues. I proposed the following to
patches on the mailing list to address them:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02658.html
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61211
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch to address this in the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02656.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #33 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 55142 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61354
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61373
Bug ID: 61373
Summary: neon registers restored incorrectly with -mapcs-frame
-O -fno-omit-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #31)
> I cannot reproduce the original bug with the patch in comment #26 reverted.
The original bug only happened with -maddress-mode=long and it may
become latent due to o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61190
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #31 from Andrew Pinski ---
I cannot reproduce the original bug with the patch in comment #26 reverted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
>> gcc/java/jcf.h:#define GET_u2(PTR) (((PTR)[0] << 8) | ((PTR)[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61370
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
I meant c++/52830
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61370
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Seems closely related to c++/58230
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61368
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61370
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56947
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52026
Bug 52026 depends on bug 56947, which changed state.
Bug 56947 Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bogus 'XX' was not declared in this scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56947
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36183
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Sounds good. We'd probably get that by changing add_candidates to mark an
explicit candidate as bad rather than non-viable, and then adding the
explanation to convert_like_real.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56947
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 30 18:55:56 2014
New Revision: 211094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/56947
* pt.c (instantiate_decl): Check that defer_ok is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60104
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri May 30 18:00:11 2014
New Revision: 211089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211089&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/60104
* config/i386/i386.c (x86_output_mi_thunk): Add memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61011
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61011
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 30 17:16:14 2014
New Revision: 211087
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211087&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61011
* configure.ac (--disable-libstdcxx): Set nocon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
After r199898, DATA_ALIGNMENT is only for optimization purposes.
Align struct >= 64 bytes to 64 bytes may increase data size due
to excessive alignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
Bug ID: 61372
Summary: Add warning to detect noexcept functions that might
throw
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61368
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Bartosiewicz ---
template
static true_type test(decltype(std::declval().template
visit(std::declval()))*);
This fixes the problem, but still don't know whether gcc or clang is wrong
about the original code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
--- Comment #6 from Cristian Rodríguez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> (In reply to Cristian Rodríguez from comment #2)
> > It would be.. if there wasn't half a ton of packages using -Werror
>
> In fact, it was committed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Cristian Rodríguez from comment #2)
> It would be.. if there wasn't half a ton of packages using -Werror
In fact, it was committed and the message tells you which option you have to
use to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Also, there was this patch, but I am not sure it was ever committed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg02321.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why don't you poision the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__ in a header file that
you -include to force people not to use use those macros which allows you to
audit the packages in one go.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
--- Comment #2 from Cristian Rodríguez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> You can simply redefine them in the command-line:
>
> http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-buildservice/2011-04/msg00049.html
>
> isn't that enough?
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
Bug ID: 61371
Summary: cpp: Implement -fno-date-time/-freproducible-dates or
similar
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36183
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61370
Bug ID: 61370
Summary: decltype, enable_if, previous arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61362
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler ---
Reduced example (removing library dependencies) using compiler flags
-Wall -Wextra -std=c++11 -pedantic
for gcc HEAD 4.10.0 20140529 (experimental)
//-
struct function {
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56947
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 30 15:09:29 2014
New Revision: 211083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211083&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/56947
* pt.c (instantiate_decl): Don't defer instantiation o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 30 15:09:40 2014
New Revision: 211084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211084&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60992
* pt.c (tsubst_init): Split out from...
(tsubst_ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61362
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61369
Bug ID: 61369
Summary: std::discrete_distribution::operator() may return
event 0 even if its probability is 0.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61368
Bug ID: 61368
Summary: Sfinae with template member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38612
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
Those sound good to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #6 from Ryan Johnson ---
(In reply to Jeremy from comment #5)
> It may not be possible, but perhaps a simpler thing might be for
> the asm() to notionally "return" a single boolean value which
> reflects ONE flag only.
Interesting!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38612
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61211
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc.hall at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58528
Eduard Bloch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blade at debian dot org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|java
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61366
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|java
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61354
--- Comment #2 from Venkataramanan ---
Maxim,
"sources/gcc-fsf/gcc" is the top level source directory and it contains the
contrib folder.
gcc compiler sources are in "sources/gcc-fsf/gcc/gcc".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz ---
Hmm, I don't see what binary-combine helper would help here? It might be a good
thing to have such a abstract-representation for doing logical optimizations of
comparison chains. Nevertheless this seems to me b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61354
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fort
58 matches
Mail list logo
