https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89091
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Any update on this David?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89381
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think these kind of questions should be handled in gcc-help@ rather than
> here. Maybe in a standard C forum too.
^^ this,
"How do I do funky things with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84387
--- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
I don't see anything in the standard related to the existence or non-existence
of components in derived-type output. In case it helps, the NAG and Intel
compilers both print "Hello world!" with the submitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84387
--- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
I don't see anything in the standard related to the existence or non-existence
of components in derived-type output. In case it helps, the NAG and Intel
compilers both print "Hello world!" with the submitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89382
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84387
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #4)
> I don't agree that the code submitted in this bug report is non-sensical.
> The submitted example is very useful for code debugging purposes. I just
> spent a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89382
Bug ID: 89382
Summary: Segmentation fault when doing (depth recursive)
Template Metaprogramming
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89381
Bug ID: 89381
Summary: Implicit copy constructor cannot be generated after
unrelated class definition
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84387
--- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson ---
I don't agree that the code submitted in this bug report is non-sensical. The
submitted example is very useful for code debugging purposes. I just spent a
couple of hours trying to isolate this same bug. B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #26 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > The warnings are gone between revisions r265814 and r265942.
>
> I can confirm that.
> So, are there objections to just committing a test case and
> closing this bug?
My (shallow) understanding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #24)
> The warnings are gone between revisions r265814 and r265942.
I can confirm that.
So, are there objections to just committing a test case and
closing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88299
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87734
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #19 from Harald Anlauf ---
The issues reported in comment #0, #1 and #3 should be fixed on trunk.
The fix for comment #0 has been backported to 7- and 8-branches.
Can the OP please confirm that the reported issues have been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88299
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Feb 17 21:19:20 2019
New Revision: 268974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-17 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/88299
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Sun Feb 17 21:14:14 2019
New Revision: 268973
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268973&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-17 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/89077
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to mdblack98 from comment #5)
> Why can't it be fixed by not counting commas between braces? That seems to
> be the problem.
Because then GCC will break some valid C code :). I think you should m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
--- Comment #5 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com ---
Why can't it be fixed by not counting commas between braces? That seems to be
the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
You can do dirty things with hiding the comma behind a macro, but don't do this
at home, kids.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/project/rhel-doc/3/rhel-cpp-en-3/macro-pitfalls.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think these kind of questions should be handled in gcc-help@ rather than
here. Maybe in a standard C forum too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89380
Bug ID: 89380
Summary: Multiple items in brace not working on nested macro
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #5 from Frank Secilia ---
Created attachment 45744
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45744&action=edit
alternative verbose compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89367
--- Comment #4 from Frank Secilia ---
Created attachment 45743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45743&action=edit
alternative repro case using pointers to method
Here is a similar case using pointers to methods. I'm honestly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89356
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Feb 17 17:53:54 2019
New Revision: 268972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89356
* g++.dg/abi/mangle68.C: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89356
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89356
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed by r268969, I'm adding new tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89315
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89315
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Feb 17 17:25:27 2019
New Revision: 268971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89315
* g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist114.C: New test.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89315
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed by r268969, will add the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89217
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89217
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Feb 17 16:52:40 2019
New Revision: 268969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89217 - ICE with list-initialization in range-based for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #22)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/20091028-1 f_lto_20091028-1_0.o-f_lto_20091028-1_1.o
> link, -O0 -flto -flto-partition=none -fuse-linker-plugin
These test cases are inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #22 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 45742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45742&action=edit
Patch that may work, but causes some regressions
The regressions are:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/20091028-1 f_lto_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88826
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89379
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89379
Bug ID: 89379
Summary: -Wformat is supposed not to give warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83417
Pavel I. Kryukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.kryukov at phystech dot
edu
--
43 matches
Mail list logo