http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
--- Comment #15 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-26 09:21:51 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Sat Nov 26 09:21:47 2011
New Revision: 181738
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181738
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #26 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de tkoenig at netcologne dot
de 2011-11-26 09:22:15 UTC ---
Am 25.11.2011 18:44, schrieb burnus at gcc dot gnu.org:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #25 from Tobias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310
Bug #: 51310
Summary: -finit-bla doesn't initialize *all* items of type bla
to the requested constant.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51311
Bug #: 51311
Summary: bogus array bounds warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #127 from Bruce Adams tortoise_74 at yahoo dot co.uk 2011-11-26
12:10:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #126)
201103 of course.
Perhaps it is my misunderstanding. I assume __cpluscplus is defined by the
compiler. Could it come from a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #128 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
12:30:25 UTC ---
Your test script runs blah twice, but you probably meant to run blah2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46321
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
12:38:01 UTC ---
For MOVE_ALLOC one also needs to do a polymorphic deallocation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51312
Bug #: 51312
Summary: Wrong interpretation of converted constant expressions
(for template arguments and enumerator initializers)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51313
Bug #: 51313
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: tree check: expected class 'constant',
have 'unary' (nop_expr) in null_ptr_cst_p, at
cp/call.c:556
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
14:32:45 UTC ---
This comment is (just) for cross reference. The patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-11/msg00217.html
fixes some MOVE_ALLOC issues, including the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
15:15:26 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Nov 26 15:15:22 2011
New Revision: 181740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181740
Log:
PR libstdc++/51296
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51312
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
15:18:40 UTC ---
Does this reduced test work with -std=gnu++11 -pthread ?
#include stdio.h
#include string.h
#include pthread.h
struct M {
pthread_mutex_t m =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51314
Bug #: 51314
Summary: sizeof... and parentheses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51312
--- Comment #2 from Nikolka tsoae at mail dot ru 2011-11-26 15:33:36 UTC ---
For the first one, you should write X{} instead of X() which looks too much
like a function type.
I agree, that was my mistake.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51314
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51315
Bug #: 51315
Summary: gcc 4.6.2 miscompilation with -ftree-sra (included in
-O2) on Debian/sparc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51316
Bug #: 51316
Summary: alignof doesn't work with arrays of unknown bound
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
Bug #: 51317
Summary: Wrong value category of conditional expression where
lvalue operands differ only in cv-qualification (see
DR 587)
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51002
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51318
Bug #: 51318
Summary: [4.7 Regression] segfault on Eigen3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
20:50:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Nov 26 20:50:28 2011
New Revision: 181743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181743
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51002
--- Comment #2 from Wim Lewis wiml at dot org 2011-11-26 21:02:55 UTC ---
I think that would produce correct code, at least.
It seems like it would be more efficient for gcc to treat the stack pointer as
mode QI on these parts, and promote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51319
Bug #: 51319
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Eigen3 enums not accepted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-26
21:44:26 UTC ---
Author: nathan
Date: Sat Nov 26 21:44:24 2011
New Revision: 181745
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181745
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51256
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51316
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-11-26 23:11:11 UTC ---
Note that this usage is not valid in C1X.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51307
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
Bug #: 51320
Summary: gcc internal compiler error (program cc1plus)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #1 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-27
03:04:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 25916
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25916
.cpp file
self-contained program source code. uses c++11 (c++0x) features
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #2 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-27
05:27:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 25917
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25917
test.cpp small discrete test case
small discrete test case which seems to do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #3 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-27
05:39:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 25918
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25918
test.cpp error output from gxx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #4 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-27
06:09:12 UTC ---
djgpp has a problem with the new 4.6.2 compiler where it is unable to generate
any temp files with -save-temps. sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #5 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-27
06:14:52 UTC ---
additional interesting stuff: the file initializer_list is not anywhere in the
compiler.
so why should I not simply get a simple error line instead of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
Andris Pavenis andris.pavenis at iki dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51321
Bug #: 51321
Summary: __builtin_types_compatible_p (any_type_t[1][],
any_other_type_t) crashes GCC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51321
--- Comment #1 from Herman Narkaytis hnarkaytis at gmail dot com 2011-11-27
07:27:23 UTC ---
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #7 from Andris Pavenis andris.pavenis at iki dot fi 2011-11-27
07:36:29 UTC ---
Tested with native compiler for DJGPP both versions 2.03r2 and 2.04 pre.
Compiles OK for both with and without optimization enabled (tried without, with
41 matches
Mail list logo
