https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66551
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
So this is a full 64-bit compiler and not the 32-bit sparc64 compiler
usually built on Debian? If so, what base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Backporting the fix from comment#8 to the 4.9 branch makes us run into PR64829.
spawn /home/abuild/rguenther/gcc49-g/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/abuild/rguenther/gcc49-g/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66554
Bug ID: 66554
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE (in expand_fix, at optabs.c:5365)
on aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63807
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48850
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Salvatore Filippone from comment #12)
Created attachment 35763 [details]
test case
Confirmed - though more like PR66251. This issue seems to be present in
most of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #9)
I see, thanks. Will there be no more releases on the 4.9 branch?
There will be more. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg00163.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 16 14:25:55 2015
New Revision: 224520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224520root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-16 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
Bug ID: 66555
Summary: Fails to warn for if (j == 0 i == i)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66553
Bug ID: 66553
Summary: openmp tasks produce libgomp warnings with
fsanitize=thread
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66553
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is a false error really.
Because There is a mutex lock around the code that does any of the stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
renlin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 16 14:48:56 2015
New Revision: 224521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224521root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66387
* pt.c (tsubst_copy)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 16 15:00:03 2015
New Revision: 224523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224523root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-16 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
--- Comment #1 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(insn 22 94 24 4 (set (reg:SI 140 [ g+2 ])
(zero_extend:SI (mem/c:HI (post_modify:SI (reg/f:SI 156)
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI 156)
(const_int 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This generalizes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947, but
vectorizing the predicate as a reduction is not sufficient here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
Bug ID: 66559
Summary: Uses-allocator construction disregarded by
list::emplace_back
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66200
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Jun 16 15:26:41 2015
New Revision: 224524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224524root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/66200 on the 4.9 branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
--- Comment #1 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Strategy could be similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
except finding the last bit rather than the first (and no jump out of the
loop).
That is, in the loop body:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||potswa at mac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66557
Bug ID: 66557
Summary: gfortran gives segfault error when trying to replace
file?
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59682
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65718
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
*** Bug 65718 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
Bug ID: 66558
Summary: Missed vectorization of loop with control flow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66557
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #15 from Christian Eggers christian.eggers at kathrein dot de ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #14)
Created attachment 35775 [details]
A possibly better patch, to modify ARM port to stop changing signed HI/QI to
unsigned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, so we don't limit group sizes to multiples of nunits which means
vect_transform_slp_perm_load misses an early out. This is then also a missed
optimization as we don't consider
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 16 14:56:50 2015
New Revision: 224522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224522root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-16 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #26 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #25)
Richi, please note that tree-vectorizer doesn't vectorize bar_v2df, at least
there is no VEC_PERM_EXPR in the .optimized dump:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
Bug ID: 66556
Summary: Wrong code-generation for armv7-a big-endian at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reproduces on x86_64 with -O -ftree-loop-vectorize -march=corei7 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #16 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org ---
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:03 AM, christian.eggers at kathrein dot de
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Shall I also test the other patch?
The out-of-ssa patch is unfinished, and won't work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66560
Bug ID: 66560
Summary: Fails to generate ADDSUBPS
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66547
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Peters matt at hpamotorsport dot com ---
Thanks for looking into that; you are correct.
And I feel rather stupid as, when testing to double-check your assessment, I
found that the stack was not aligned before the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56776
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Jun 16 17:14:00 2015
New Revision: 224527
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224527root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/56776
* config/i386/sse.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #27 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #26)
I will open a new PR for this ...
PR 66560
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51848
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
--- Comment #2 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com ---
That bug only mentions missing allocator_traits support.
It looks like the problem here is that _List_node declares a member _Tp and
initializes it, whereas it should declare aligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66559
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, I know what the bug is. If the container used
allocator_traits::construct() as it's supposed to then scoped_allocator_adaptor
would work.
The problem is that std::list is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56776
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Oops, wrong PR nubmer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jun 16 18:13:44 2015
New Revision: 224531
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224531root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR jit/66539: Add parentheses as needed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Jun 16 17:14:00 2015
New Revision: 224527
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224527root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/56766
* config/i386/sse.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bug 37021 depends on bug 56766, which changed state.
Bug 56766 Summary: Fails to combine (vec_select (vec_concat ...)) to (vec_merge
...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65393
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 16 17:53:52 2015
New Revision: 224530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224530root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65393
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66527
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's a slightly different test case showing a similar problem and pointing
out that the issue isn't specific to initializers. Also, the warning at the
end is incorrect (probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #7 from Jennifer Yao jy38 at zips dot uakron.edu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
Does this patch fix it?
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
@@ -226,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jun 16 19:44:05 2015
New Revision: 224535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224535root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR jit/66539: Properly add testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:19:45PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I have
if (!sym-value)
goto error;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59682
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66258
--- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson wilson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wilson
Date: Tue Jun 16 20:11:41 2015
New Revision: 224538
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224538root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 16 19:29:09 2015
New Revision: 224533
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224533root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/58063
* tree.c (bot_manip):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 16 19:29:19 2015
New Revision: 224534
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224534root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66536
* tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59682
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 16 20:07:57 2015
New Revision: 224537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224537root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-16 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #11 from Gubbins dave.gittins at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #9)
I see, thanks. Will there be no more releases on the 4.9 branch?
There will be more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66562
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66561
Bug ID: 66561
Summary: __builtin_LINE at al. should yield constant
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue is that C FE overloads TYPE_VFIELD by C_TYPE_INCOMPLETE_VARS and
dangle the pointers.
I already work around that in verify_type but the workaround assumes that only
main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66562
Bug ID: 66562
Summary: ICE with gfortran-5.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
How about adding:
--cut here--
Index: g++.dg/lto/pr65276_0.C
===
--- g++.dg/lto/pr65276_0.C (revision 224475)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The thing is that if you poison at the end of destructor, you need to unpoison
it again somewhere, except for file scope variables that when they are
destructed supposedly can't be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
The thing is that if you poison at the end of destructor, you need to
unpoison it again somewhere, except for file scope variables that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66551
Bug ID: 66551
Summary: [SPARC64] Fails to bootstrap in stage 3 with linker
error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
Bug ID: 66552
Summary: Missed optimization when shift amount is result of
signed modulus
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66536
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63807
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #5 from Gubbins dave.gittins at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
Therefore no field initializers are involved. The warning in this situation
is surely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35788
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35788action=edit
Set PATH for all testsuites not just for libstdc++
Since the problem isn't specific to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does this patch fix it?
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
@@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ proc libstdc++_init { testfile } {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate
initialization, but is in fact value initialization (because this is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66547
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
Therefore no field initializers are involved. The warning in this situation
is surely incorrect? I think the original bug report was correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64857
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
and bits/stdc++.h doesn't include codecvt or shared_mutex.
This part was fixed in r224425
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66551
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #6 from Gubbins dave.gittins at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate
initialization, but is in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #7 from Gubbins dave.gittins at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #6)
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
The original bug report points that in C++11 this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #5)
The warning is still produced with gcc 4.9.2 (surely that's supported?)
The warning isn't given for 5.1 and trunk (not sure what I tested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #9 from Gubbins dave.gittins at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #5)
The warning is still produced with gcc 4.9.2 (surely that's supported?)
The warning isn't
90 matches
Mail list logo
