http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
Bug ID: 57880
Summary: cp/parser.c: 6 * missing break ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57631
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57156
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz kretz at kde dot org ---
I just noticed the following in the Intel Optimization Reference Manual
(Version 028 from July 2013), section 2.2 Sandy Bridge:
2.2.3.1 Renamer
[...]
There is another dependency breaking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57881
Bug ID: 57881
Summary: Pre-processor pre-includes breaks preprocessing of non
C/C++ code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52987
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
The first half is fixed for 4.9.0 (r200150).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57865
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #5)
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4)
Created attachment 30489 [details]
Fix ool_adjust
Please verify that this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57865
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #6)
Test results:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-07/msg00968.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57882
Bug ID: 57882
Summary: ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57882
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ejkruus at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
Once we have ref-qualifiers, it should be OK to add the non-const overload
with an lvalue ref-qualifier, though.
Now we have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883
Bug ID: 57883
Summary: Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52669
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884
Bug ID: 57884
Summary: False positive in libgfortran finalization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871
--- Comment #5 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
I have now found two more oddities of type promotion but I don't claim
that these are gfortran bugs, only that the mmanual might need amending.
Oddity 1. Although -freal-4-real-8 does what the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884
--- Comment #1 from Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30498
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30498action=edit
zcopy FORTRAN procedure from BLAS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884
--- Comment #2 from Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko at gmail dot com ---
Sorry, forgot to add GCC configuration information in original report:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/gcc481/bin/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:30:04PM +, harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871
--- Comment #5 from harper at msor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com ---
Trunk rev. 200913 fixes this problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
What about 4_8-branch? The bug is marked as 4.8 Regression. Either way, I
suppose the bug should be closed, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57873
Bernhard schlimmchen at yahoo dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57661
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #7 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com ---
Taking a stab at fixing this. Here is what is going on. In rev. 200179, this
change to tree-inline.c
Index: tree-inline.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #8 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com ---
One other alternative to the patch proposed earlier. The reported bug happens
only when optimization is turned on as the early inliner pass invokes
incremental inlining which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
Bug ID: 57885
Summary: unordered_map find slower in 4.8.1 than 4.7.3 with
integer key
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
27 matches
Mail list logo