http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55511
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55507
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
08:32:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 29 08:32:32 2012
New Revision: 193923
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193923
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55172
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54940
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52161
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
08:43:57 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Nov 29 08:43:48 2012
New Revision: 193924
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193924
Log:
2012-11-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55525
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55524
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55523
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
08:54:31 UTC ---
This is rather a bug in the machine description I think. Isn't there a target
header that is included from the generated files?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 09:18:59
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 09:18:54 2012
New Revision: 193925
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193925
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55528
Bug #: 55528
Summary: g++ 4.5.2 crash when compiling template function
containing asm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55428
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Kasberger kasberger at heidenhain dot de
2012-11-29 09:21:06 UTC ---
I hope at least someone can agree that the behavior for -mms-bitfields
-mno-align-double options in one command line is wrong and a bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 09:21:23
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 09:21:17 2012
New Revision: 193926
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193926
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55428
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-11-29 09:26:31 UTC ---
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #31 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-29 09:34:54 UTC
---
OK I finally managed to get it working.
The problem was I was using the rpm packages from perlz.org for mpfr,gmp and
libmpc. Both gmp 4.3.2 and 5.0 gave me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55445
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 09:36:49
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 09:36:41 2012
New Revision: 193928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193928
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55445
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 09:39:54
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 09:39:49 2012
New Revision: 193929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193929
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55445
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #32 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-29 09:43:45 UTC
---
One more question:
If I intend to use the patch from PR 33704 to modify my gcc and then build
commercial applications with it, is that ok? Would that raise
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55492
--- Comment #2 from Yvan Roux yvan.roux at linaro dot org 2012-11-29 09:51:41
UTC ---
Thanks Andrew for the review, I can't commit the patch myself,
can you do it, or have I to post it on the mailing list ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
--- Comment #7 from mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 10:02:22 UTC ---
Author: mgretton
Date: Thu Nov 29 10:02:16 2012
New Revision: 193930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193930
Log:
PR target/54974
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55527
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
in
comment 1 as detected by valgrind 3.8.1 for a patched (see comment 3) gcc
version 4.7.3 20121129 (prerelease) (GCC)
==25497== 300 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 1
==25497==at 0x4A0765C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
==25497==by 0x4C29208: _gfortrani_get_mem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-11-29 10:23:13 UTC ---
Is that for the more complete patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-11/msg00083.html
BTW, wrong PR number in that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55526
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55528
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53685
Jos de Kloe kloedej at knmi dot nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kloedej at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Krack matthias.krack at gmail dot com 2012-11-29
11:12:56 UTC ---
I also checked the more complete patch PR5469, but it shows still the memory
leaks as described in comment 5 for the 4_7-branch. The same is true
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54910
--- Comment #3 from George Spelvin linux at horizon dot com 2012-11-29
11:12:52 UTC ---
... and this particular case wouldn't arise, since Thumb-2 (ARMv7) implies the
CLZ instruction (ARMv5), and I wouldn't need this table-based
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54910
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
11:15:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
... and this particular case wouldn't arise, since Thumb-2 (ARMv7) implies the
CLZ instruction (ARMv5), and I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54744
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-29
11:38:42 UTC ---
Infinite recursion in resolve_typename_type, between the two recursive calls
inside it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
Riccardo Manfrin RiccardoManfrin at email dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Bug #: 55529
Summary: Bogus array-bounds warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55523
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-29 13:02:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Why is the warning bogus? If the loop body is executed at all, you always
overflow the loop bounds.
Sure, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
13:06:21 UTC ---
This kind of warning is diagnosed even for code that isn't always executed
(after all, in most cases you don't know whether a function will be ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-29 13:16:08 UTC ---
The testcase was derived from the Linux kernel:
CC kernel/rcutree.o
kernel/rcutree.c: In function ‘rcu_init_one’:
kernel/rcutree.c:2850:13:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-29 13:25:07 UTC ---
It's defined as:
94 int rcu_num_lvls __read_mostly = RCU_NUM_LVLS;
and never modified elsewhere AFAICS.
and from kernel/rcutree.h:
364
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55052
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
13:29:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Patch applied.
fixes the issue and the another issue in perlbmk which had the exactly the same
symptoms
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-29
13:31:57 UTC ---
IMHO, Jakub's replies + the clarification about static mean this is invalid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55530
Bug #: 55530
Summary: Visibility warning not always shown
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55530
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja jaak at ristioja dot ee 2012-11-29 13:37:29
UTC ---
Sorry, the minimal testcase should have been:
struct __attribute__ ((visibility(internal))) A {};
struct B { A * a; }; /* warning: 'B' declared with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55523
--- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-29 14:12:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Yeah, either you'd need to provide prototype for the function in
epiphany-protos.h, or you shouldn't include those
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 14:17:37
UTC ---
My ok JonY has for the patch of 4.8. It is related to a fix present upstream
in mingw-w64 about snprintf-arguments for POSIX-mode. So I don't intend to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-29
14:24:44 UTC ---
Already in mainline:
2012-10-31 Jonathan Yong jo...@users.sourceforge.net
* config/os/mingw32-w64/os_defines.h: Do not define anymore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55124
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|vries at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
14:40:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Thanks for the head's up. I was just looking at ML's thread and thought it
would be still pending.
Sorry, I broke the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55492
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2012-11-29
15:20:04 UTC ---
Send it to the patches list.
As long as you have a waiver on file allowing the code to be used I can check
it in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #21 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 15:26:36
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:26:29 2012
New Revision: 193934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193934
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #22 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 15:27:45
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:27:36 2012
New Revision: 193935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193935
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #23 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 15:28:54
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:28:48 2012
New Revision: 193936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193936
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Alexander Dubov oakad at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oakad at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-29
15:36:53 UTC ---
Frankly, additional examples which are neither self-contained nor minimized
don't help that much. That said, this is a regression and we have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 15:40:27
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Nov 29 15:40:16 2012
New Revision: 193938
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193938
Log:
2012-11-29 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|vector literal |constexpr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections
-frandom-seed=compatibility-atomic-c++0x.lo -ffixed-r40 -ffixed-r41 -ffixed-r42
-ffixed-r43 -o compatibility-atomic-c++0x.s
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.8.0 20121129 (experimental) (epiphany-elf)
compiled by GNU C version 4.8.0 20121026 (experimental), GMP version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
17:51:49 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Nov 29 17:51:40 2012
New Revision: 193943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193943
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #24 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 18:40:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 18:40:27 2012
New Revision: 193946
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193946
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #25 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 18:43:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Nov 29 18:43:29 2012
New Revision: 193947
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193947
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
18:52:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 28829
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28829
Proposed fix
I suppose something across these lines should do the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55456
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
19:00:49 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Nov 29 19:00:38 2012
New Revision: 193948
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193948
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-29 19:07:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created attachment 28829 [details]
Proposed fix
I suppose something across these lines should do the trick. I am not sure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-29 19:08:28
UTC ---
This patch:
diff --git a/gcc/lto-symtab.c b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
index 0b0cdac..295fd37 100644
--- a/gcc/lto-symtab.c
+++ b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
@@ -443,10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55532
Bug #: 55532
Summary: Runtime segfault calling mutable lambda wrapped in a
non-mutable lambda within a template function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55532
--- Comment #1 from Matt Godbolt matt at godbolt dot org 2012-11-29 20:03:47
UTC ---
I can reproduce this on GCC 4.8 (rev 185382], and g++ 4.6.3. Adding -O makes
the issue go away (as the whole program is optimized to return 0;).
From the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
20:13:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:12:58 2012
New Revision: 193954
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193954
Log:
PR c++/53137
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55532
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|akramnik at gmail dot com |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50852
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
20:16:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:16:46 2012
New Revision: 193955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193955
Log:
PR c++/50852
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
--- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
20:16:57 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:16:46 2012
New Revision: 193955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193955
Log:
PR c++/50852
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53862
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
20:17:26 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:17:02 2012
New Revision: 193956
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193956
Log:
PR c++/53862
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
20:17:36 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 29 20:17:20 2012
New Revision: 193957
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193957
Log:
PR c++/53137
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55533
Bug #: 55533
Summary: Can't bootstrap libsanitizer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55533
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50852
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
Bug #: 55534
Summary: -Wno-missing-include-dirs does not work with gfortran
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55535
Bug #: 55535
Summary: Call to default constructor with overloaded subscript
operator is interpreted as declaring/using array
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
21:06:07 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Nov 29 21:06:02 2012
New Revision: 193958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193958
Log:
PR libgcc/48076
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55535
--- Comment #1 from Niels Penneman niels at penneman dot org 2012-11-29
21:07:07 UTC ---
Wrong copy/paste for output. Below is the correct compiler output.
$ g++ -fsyntax-only -Wall -Wextra voodoo.cxx
voodoo.cxx: In function ‘void func()’:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55536
Bug #: 55536
Summary: libbacktrace abort in backtrace_alloc at mmap.c:99
running btest
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #10 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
21:11:05 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Nov 29 21:11:00 2012
New Revision: 193959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193959
Log:
PR libgcc/48076
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55536
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29
21:15:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28831
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28831
Patch
Patch is not perfect but btest runs successfully with
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
