http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53784
Dag Lem dag at nimrod dot no changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-redhat-linux
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54145
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54148
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
07:47:05 UTC ---
I don't see any error in that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #2 from amker.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com 2012-08-01
07:49:51 UTC ---
I measured this kind of regression in benchmark CSiBE on
arm-none-eabi/cortex-m0 with Os optimization. Turns out most of the them are
relate to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
Bug #: 54149
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C11 memory model
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01 09:22:37
UTC ---
I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
functions returning bool and int are binary compatible, which is likely true on
most
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
09:26:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
functions returning bool and int are binary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
09:28:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
functions returning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54074
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54147
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
09:49:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
functions returning bool and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
09:52:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
functions returning bool and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
10:13:32 UTC ---
With GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20120731 (experimental) [trunk revision 190015] the
dumps look slightly different. I'm using the -fdump-rtl-all-slim dumps (with a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
10:35:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
TODO:
1. Remaining issues of assumed-rank, e.g. shape/ubound/lbound,
class-to-type handling, contiguous attribute.
And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 10:59:46 UTC ---
If I didn't make mistake it seems big slow down is caused by revision 175752
Date: Fri Jul 1 10:00:25 2011 +
2011-07-01 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
11:58:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 27918
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27918
Hack regmove to do limited propagation of hard regs
I have a patch to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #75 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
12:22:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27919
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27919
rough patch
(In reply to comment #74)
For variable to be type compatible
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #76 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-01 12:28:10 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #75 from Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #77 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
12:37:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #75)
Created attachment 27919 [details]
rough patch
About the patch:
The failures are mostly(all?) due to structure constructors.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
13:02:46 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 1 13:02:38 2012
New Revision: 190037
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190037
Log:
gcc:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
Bug #: 54150
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gimple dumps no longer honor -blocks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54148
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-08-01 13:10:36 UTC ---
On 1-Aug-12, at 3:47 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I don't see any error in that?
Test just fails with no message.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54151
Bug #: 54151
Summary: Comparing if float is equal to decimal constant on
Microblaze with mhard-float results in internal
compiler error.
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54151
--- Comment #1 from cyberwizzard cyberwizzard+gnu at gmail dot com 2012-08-01
13:18:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 27921
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27921
Compiler result when using '-save-temps'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54152
Bug #: 54152
Summary: add Bytemark
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #5 from amker.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com 2012-08-01
13:48:50 UTC ---
Thanks for your patch, IMHO, I don't think the problem could be fixed in this
way, because:
1.
78 r177:DF=r0:DF
80 [sp:SI]=r166:DF
81
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153
Bug #: 54153
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
14:08:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
The inline heuristics stuff is probably also due to stack-vars handling,
I will look into that.
Turns out this is due to the use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
14:14:11 UTC ---
With the attribute((flatten)) removed, the full test case compiles in less than
a minute.
--enable-clocale=gnu --enable-java-
gc=boehm --enable-languages=c --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120801 (experimental) [trunk revision 190037] (GCC)
You probably would need to add --with-arch=1.1 to duplicate the
default native settings with a cross.
The difference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #20 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-08-01 14:27:30 UTC ---
On 1-Aug-12, at 10:20 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
The difference in extracts and deposits may not be the problem. The -
O2 code appears to have the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54152
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
14:32:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
clang compiles the test case with attribute((flatten)) because it doesn't
support that attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
Bug #: 54154
Summary: cprop_hardreg generates redundant instructions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com 2012-08-01
14:34:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 27923
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27923
After cprop_hardreg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
Bug #: 54155
Summary: Newly compiled GCC 4.4.4 on Solaris sparc gives
problem with -m32/-m64 flags
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #2 from Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com 2012-08-01
14:37:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 27924
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27924
Add debug info when redundant insn is going to be generated
Looking at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #4 from Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com 2012-08-01
15:01:29 UTC ---
Due to my last comment I marked this as a request for enhancement.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #78 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
15:01:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #76)
You mean
[...]
? Yes, that also should be build_distinct_type_copy.
Even without that, the patch regtests cleanly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-01 15:05:22 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #78 from Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
Bug #: 54156
Summary: New fail on AVX target: gcc.dg/vect/pr53773.c. 190010
vs revision 189996
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2012-08-01 15:41:01 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
may also break stuff if the C library uses isnan. I could also ask glibc to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-08-01
15:57:42 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt wschmidt@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Tue Jul 31 12:25:04 2012 +
gcc:
2012-07-31 Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
15:59:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I'm beginning to think this is one of those cases of Doctor it hurts if I
...
that should be closed as WONTFIX.
Indeed, might
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-08-01
16:06:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Use __atomic_add_fetch and __atomic_fetch_sub in the testcase, and you will
Eh,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
Bug #: 54157
Summary: [x32] -maddress-mode=long failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #80 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
16:22:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
this%y = this%find_y() ! FAILS
the lhs is a target, and the rhs is NOT a target, so that the middle-end
types
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 16:25:15
UTC ---
[hjl@gnu-32 gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.i
struct s2{
int n[24 -1][24 -1][24 -1];
};
struct test2{
struct s2 e;
};
struct test2 tmp2[4];
void main1 ()
{
int i,j;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
16:30:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
The isnan function declaration is for compatibility with some old
standards such as Unix98 that had such a function instead of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 16:49:53
UTC ---
Created attachment 27925
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27925
A patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
--- Comment #11 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
17:51:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Fixed.
Is it still your plan to also do something with the patch to expose target
addressing modes earlier?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #81 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
18:37:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
If that's valid then you can make the middle-end happy by wrapping
the RHS inside a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR with the LHS type.
OK. will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-01 18:42:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
Fixed.
Is it still your plan to also do something with the patch to expose target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #21 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
18:44:04 UTC ---
The issue is with the handling of negative constants.
In this bit of code,
max_cost = (set_src_cost (gen_rtx_MULT (mode, fake_reg, op1),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01 19:15:04 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Aug 1 19:14:59 2012
New Revision: 190048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190048
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-03-09
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2012-08-01
19:35:27 UTC ---
This seems to have broken again with 4.8 trunk, dated 20120801.
It seemed ok about a week ago, so probably some recent breakage.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-08-01 20:11:15 UTC ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat test.ii
struct A
{
bool isHint();
};
class B
{
void makeLine( int *) const;
void drawLine() const; A* to() const;
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34548
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
20:41:25 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Aug 1 20:41:16 2012
New Revision: 190051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190051
Log:
PR 34548
* function.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #16 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01 21:19:36 UTC ---
With the example from comment 15 and r190039, I don't see a segmentation fault,
but this:
...
$ g++ test.C -O2
test.C: In member function ‘void B::makeLine(int*) const’:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
21:43:54 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Aug 1 21:43:50 2012
New Revision: 190054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190054
Log:
2012-08-01 Thomas König
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
21:45:49 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk, closing.
Thanks for the bug report!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 21:47:59
UTC ---
make_extraction in combine generates:
7474 inner = force_to_mode (inner, wanted_inner_mode,
7475 pos_rtx
7476
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 22:12:00
UTC ---
This patch:
diff --git a/gcc/expmed.c b/gcc/expmed.c
index 1fe0034..2780164 100644
--- a/gcc/expmed.c
+++ b/gcc/expmed.c
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ mode_for_extraction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 22:35:29 UTC
---
Reversion of 175752 on latest 4.7 branch improved FP EMU by 41%, but made
ASSIGNMENT worse by 8%.
with 175752
NUMERIC SORT: 1562.9 : 40.08 :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01 23:14:36 UTC ---
The test-case from comment 15 passes with r190033, and fails with r190034.
block 10 contains:
...
# .MEMD.2233_20 = PHI .MEMD.2233_5(11), .MEMD.2233_10(12)
...
and is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #14 from Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01
23:35:12 UTC ---
Ramana, chunks of regular expressions within parentheses are matched and added
to the returned expression that is used in scan-assembler-times. To avoid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
00:34:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:11 2012
New Revision: 190061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190061
Log:
PR debug/52983
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
00:34:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:11 2012
New Revision: 190061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190061
Log:
PR debug/52983
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
00:34:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:11 2012
New Revision: 190061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190061
Log:
PR debug/52983
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
00:34:30 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:26 2012
New Revision: 190062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190062
Log:
PR debug/52983
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
00:34:45 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:41 2012
New Revision: 190063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190063
Log:
PR debug/52983
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54158
Bug #: 54158
Summary: Silently accepts sizeof to non-static member without
object in C++03 mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111
--- Comment #1 from Leonid Volnitsky leonid at volnitsky dot com 2012-08-02
04:02:27 UTC ---
I've just tested with gcc-463.It accept/reject exactly the same as gcc-453.
85 matches
Mail list logo
