[Bug c++/63268] Ambiguous non-specialized static template scope is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268 David Kastrup changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #5 from David Kastrup

[Bug c++/63268] Ambiguous non-specialized static template scope is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268 David Kastrup changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c++/63268] New: Ambiguous non-specialized static template scope is accepted

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dak at gnu dot org The following code template class Bass { T elt; public: static void bing () { } }; class Deriv : Bass { void boing () { Bass::bing (); } }; compiles without

[Bug tree-optimization/53239] [4.7/4.8 Regression] VRP vs named value return opt

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239 David Kastrup changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dak at gnu dot org --- Comment #12 from

[Bug middle-end/51323] [4.6/4.7 Regression] g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323 --- Comment #9 from David Kastrup 2011-11-29 11:13:21 UTC --- Code review is at http://codereview.appspot.com/5431088>, the discussion of the bug is at http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1997>. As you can see, the proposed workar

[Bug middle-end/51323] g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323 --- Comment #7 from David Kastrup 2011-11-29 09:43:44 UTC --- I agree that the real fix is to force an upgrade of the compiler to a fixed version. However, Ubuntu 11.10 has been released and is in circulation, so we can't reasonably implement th

[Bug middle-end/51323] g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323 --- Comment #5 from David Kastrup 2011-11-28 19:33:26 UTC --- Question: the proposed fix is in gcc/calls.c which looks somewhat architecture independent. Am I right in assuming that this means that the bug may manifest itself under architectures

[Bug middle-end/51323] g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323 --- Comment #4 from David Kastrup 2011-11-28 18:24:10 UTC --- I can confirm that my version of gcc identifying itself as gcc version 4.6.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) makes your test program abort under -O2. If you _cannot_ confirm this with

[Bug c++/51333] cxxabi.h incompatible with -fkeep-inline-functions at link time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333 David Kastrup changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|4.5.2 | --- Comment #2 from David Kastrup 2011-

[Bug c++/51333] New: cxxabi.h incompatible with -fkeep-inline-functions at link time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333 Bug #: 51333 Summary: cxxabi.h incompatible with -fkeep-inline-functions at link time Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/51323] g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323 David Kastrup changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|4.5.0 |4.5.2 --- Comment #2 from David Kastrup

[Bug c++/51323] g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323 --- Comment #1 from David Kastrup 2011-11-28 11:32:46 UTC --- -fno-optimize-sibling-calls avoids the problematic optimization. For no good reason at all, -fkeep-inline-functions, documented to do a completely unrelated non-optimization (namely e

[Bug c++/51323] New: g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323 Bug #: 51323 Summary: g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized call Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED