On 04/05/11 17:12, GM wrote:
I'm willing to translate publication located at http://gcc.gnu.org/java/
to the Belorussian language (my mother tongue). What I'm asking for is
your written permission, so you don't mind after I'll post the
translation to my blog. The translation is intended
On 5 May 2011 09:38, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/05/11 17:12, GM wrote:
I'm willing to translate publication located at http://gcc.gnu.org/java/
to the Belorussian language (my mother tongue). What I'm asking for is
your written permission, so you don't mind after I'll post the
On 5 May 2011 10:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 5 May 2011 09:38, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/05/11 17:12, GM wrote:
I'm willing to translate publication located at http://gcc.gnu.org/java/
to the Belorussian language (my mother tongue). What I'm asking for is
your written
And either Google Translate is very very good at Belarusian, or the
pages this guy translates have just been piped through Google
Translate. They're identical.
And I'm afraid worthless.
Can you show me a link? I'm kinda Belarusian native speaker.
blog format is a bit suspicious to maintain
On 5 May 2011 16:08, Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gmail.com wrote:
And either Google Translate is very very good at Belarusian, or the
pages this guy translates have just been piped through Google
Translate. They're identical.
And I'm afraid worthless.
Can you show me a link? I'm kinda
On Thu, 5 May 2011 16:28:34 +0100
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2011 16:08, Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gmail.com wrote:
And either Google Translate is very very good at Belarusian, or the
pages this guy translates have just been piped through Google
Translate.
On 5 May 2011 18:52, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 16:28:34 +0100
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2011 16:08, Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gmail.com wrote:
And either Google Translate is very very good at Belarusian, or the
pages this guy translates have
On May 5, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 5 May 2011 18:52, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
...
I support your suspiction. Linking to that stuff is harmful.
Thanks for checking them, Sergei.
Now I'm convinced Bohdan Zograf is a link farmer and should be ignored.
It sounds to me
Hello,
I would like to announce that I have been able to compile GCC while
checking it with a simple MELT plugin that I have wrote. This plugin is
integrated into GCC by using the MELT plugin. I guess this is the first
successfull use of MELT with a huge real program like GCC.
For those who
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:53, Pierre Vittet pier...@pvittet.com wrote:
Hello,
I would like to announce that I have been able to compile GCC while checking
it with a simple MELT plugin that I have wrote. This plugin is integrated
into GCC by using the MELT plugin. I guess this is the first
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 15:16, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I've always found MELT interesting as an exercise in impossibility and
[ ... ]
There was some confusion about my meaning here. It was meant as a
compliment. Sorry for the confusion.
Diego.
On 05/05/2011 21:46, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 15:16, Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com wrote:
I've always found MELT interesting as an exercise in impossibility and
[ ... ]
There was some confusion about my meaning here. It was meant as a
compliment. Sorry for
This merge brings the gimple-front-end branch up to 4.7. It needed
some minimal adjustments, but things seem to be working. Sandeep,
please make sure it does. You may need to rebase your patch before
committing it.
We need some tests in testsuite/gimple. Sandeep, do you think you
could add
er, wrong subject. I merged up to rev 173270.
Diego.
Hello
Just looking at this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#gas
I saw this text (the GNU loader). Is this really an alternative name
for gas? I've not seen it called GNU loader elsewhere. I was wondering
if the text could just be removed.
Please keep my email address in any replies.
Best
Hello
Is it expected that more than one -o option should be allowed by GCC
on command line? The later -o option overriding earlier. I had
expected the parameter checking to detect this duplication of options.
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
$ gcc -W -Wall -o main main.c -omup.o
$ ls
main.c
On 5 May 2011 22:30, Jon Grant wrote:
Hello
Just looking at this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#gas
I saw this text (the GNU loader). Is this really an alternative name
for gas? I've not seen it called GNU loader elsewhere. I was wondering
if the text could just be removed.
It refers
Jon Grant j...@jguk.org writes:
Is it expected that more than one -o option should be allowed by GCC
on command line? The later -o option overriding earlier.
Yes, this is expected. Most Unix utilities behave that way: when an
option with an argument is specified twice, and it only makes sense
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 11:33:44AM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
It sounds to me like the question are you allowed to translate this remains
valid and open, even if this particular translator is not real.
Yes, the SC's discussing it with RMS now and I'm hopeful that there will
be some positive
On 05/05/2011 11:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jon Grant j...@jguk.org writes:
Is it expected that more than one -o option should be allowed by GCC
on command line? The later -o option overriding earlier.
Yes, this is expected. Most Unix utilities behave that way: when an
option with an
Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com writes:
On 05/05/2011 11:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jon Grant j...@jguk.org writes:
Is it expected that more than one -o option should be allowed by GCC
on command line? The later -o option overriding earlier.
Yes, this is expected. Most Unix
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110505 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110505/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 12:03 +0200, Patrick Marlier wrote:
---Sorry for the late response.
Dear Ismail,
On 05/03/2011 11:18 PM, ismail wrote:
++ First of all, MEMCPY and MEMSET functions do not include any
transaction identifier (id) and transactions inside the LeeTM fails
during
Consider this program under GNU/Linux (x86_64):
- np.c ---
#include cstdio
#include csignal
#include cstring
#include cstdlib
static void handler(int sig)
{
printf(got signal %d\n, sig);
throw 1;
}
int (*my_vector)(int);
int *bar;
int main(int argc, char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48877
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-05 06:50:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
neither 0PFw.d nor 1PEw.dEe allow it). However, AFAICS leading blanks are
still
allowed as they are part of the real
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48872
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-05-05 07:15:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
More information by a different example: It seems that the problem case reacts
very sensitive to minor modifications of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48873
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-05-05 07:31:21 UTC ---
More information after some analysis: The problem occurs in other unevaluated
contexts as well and it is similarly sensitive to very small
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48252
--- Comment #6 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 07:35:03 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu May 5 07:34:59 2011
New Revision: 173417
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173417
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2011-04-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48880
Summary: regression when performing __builtin_object_size in
deep inline chain
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48880
--- Comment #1 from Witold Baryluk baryluk at smp dot if.uj.edu.pl 2011-05-05
08:16:54 UTC ---
In original source a c function have this signature:
static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) unsigned long
__attribute__((warn_unused_result))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48879
--- Comment #1 from Blanca Mancilla mancilla at cse dot unsw.edu.au
2011-05-05 08:48:29 UTC ---
I succeeded in compiling by serring the following environment variables:
export C_INCLUDE_PATH=/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu
export
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48880
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48252
--- Comment #7 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 08:39:47 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu May 5 08:39:40 2011
New Revision: 173418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173418
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2011-04-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48252
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48879
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
09:11:44 UTC ---
Shouldn't this be Component=bootstrap not c++ ?
I assume the linux-libc-dev package is installed? That provides asm/errno.h
What compiler are you using to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
Summary: Dynamic link to libstdc++-6.dll / libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll
produces broken binaries
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45979
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-05 09:52:18 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu May 5 09:52:12 2011
New Revision: 173421
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173421
Log:
For Michael Hope.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48880
--- Comment #3 from Witold Baryluk baryluk at smp dot if.uj.edu.pl 2011-05-05
09:55:25 UTC ---
In my case it only happens if I have two independent calls with different
arguments. I do not understand some aspects, but removing some semingly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42544
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48870
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48871
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10541
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boostcpp at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48843
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer aldot at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48197
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #51 from Lionel GUEZ ebay.20.tedlap at spamgourmet dot com
2011-05-05 10:46:21 UTC ---
It is PR48787 and a patch has been submitted for approval. It is fixed on my
development trunk.
Hello. I do not understand: you say that there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48879
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #50 from Lionel GUEZ ebay.20.tedlap at spamgourmet dot com
2011-05-05 10:42:31 UTC ---
Can you please provide a short example program, and what version of GFortran
you are using?
I cannot reproduce the described bug with GFortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48511
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-05 10:57:33 UTC ---
G95 is actually using this method for list-directed output.
print *, .3, .33, .333, ., .3, .33, .333
g95 = 0.3 0.33 0.333
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46639
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
11:03:23 UTC ---
Another testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24188
Richard suggests running pass_vrp_early instead of (or in addition to) pass_ccp
with some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48880
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46639
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||baryluk at smp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48875
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48882
Summary: ?: ternary operator fails in certain contexts -
compile error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48883
Summary: ?: ternary operator fails in certain contexts - link
error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48882
--- Comment #1 from Adele Schmidt adele.schmidthammer at yahoo dot de
2011-05-05 11:37:33 UTC ---
no attachment, because precompiled file (extension .ii) was too big
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
11:54:12 UTC ---
I think the problem is that the debug stmts are being expanded into debug insns
*before* the code that should precede them. If we expanded the stmts in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48883
--- Comment #1 from Adele Schmidt adele.schmidthammer at yahoo dot de
2011-05-05 11:49:25 UTC ---
However
if(even) fp = myMaxint;
else fp = myMinint;
does work as expected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48884
Summary: decltype's operand doesn't consider friend declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48381
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
12:05:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 5 12:05:42 2011
New Revision: 173427
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173427
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48381
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48883
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 12:11:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
neither 0PFw.d nor 1PEw.dEe allow it). However, AFAICS leading blanks are
still
allowed as they are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-05-05 12:28:01 UTC ---
On 05/05/2011 12:04 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
---snip---
As much as I'd like to, I cannot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #52 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-05-05 12:30:38 UTC ---
On 05/05/2011 04:01 AM, ebay.20.tedlap at spamgourmet dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #51 from Lionel GUEZebay.20.tedlap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48884
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48602
--- Comment #53 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
12:35:46 UTC ---
The test:
print (1pg7.1), 0.96
end
Fails in 4.4 and works in 4.5, so this confirms it was fixed quite a while ago.
I strongly suggest you upgrade your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 12:44:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
On 05/05/2011 12:04 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
---snip---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
Summary: missed optimization with restrict qualifier?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48886
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
12:58:33 UTC ---
s/27/28/ of course, sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48878
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48886
Summary: VTA issues with word size integers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48887
Summary: [OOP] SELECT TYPE: Associate name shall not be a
pointer/allocatable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48826
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com 2011-05-05
13:19:43 UTC ---
The issue with ARM/SH/S390 backends appears to be there was a literal pool
split happening in between a call insn and the NOTE_INSN_CALL_ARG_LOCATION. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4
Summary: Creating a copy variable simplify assembly -
i686-pc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-05 13:31:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Also, See below. Does this give the expected output?
print *, (1.0, 0.0)
end
$ ./a.out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
13:54:18 UTC ---
Why are you changing TER for that though? Won't that affect also real code
generation rather than just debug insns? I mean there are targets e.g. with
MEM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48889
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: in
gfc_is_constant_expr, at fortran/expr.c:906
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
14:50:48 UTC ---
Because the standard was interpreted that way when implementing restrict
support.
And also because otherwise pointers based on a restrict pointer cannot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48873
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
14:53:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu May 5 14:53:35 2011
New Revision: 173433
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173433
Log:
PR c++/48873
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48844
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48668
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
15:30:32 UTC ---
Hi,
I am not 100% I understand the problem. For 4.6 we indeed probably should go
with reverting to prevous order.
We are trying to output both the function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48749
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48872
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48873
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
15:29:03 UTC ---
*** Bug 48872 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48873
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
15:48:22 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 5 15:48:18 2011
New Revision: 173436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173436
Log:
PR debug/48853
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48889
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48844
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
16:27:09 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu May 5 16:27:03 2011
New Revision: 173443
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173443
Log:
PR ada/48844
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48844
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48844
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
16:22:21 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu May 5 16:22:16 2011
New Revision: 173442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173442
Log:
PR ada/48844
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31584
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48673
Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48159
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-05-05 18:43:43
UTC ---
Created attachment 24191
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24191
reduced testcase from comment #2
$ gcc -O3 -g pr48159-2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48890
Summary: length of a character derived-type component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #17 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
20:14:09 UTC ---
I think the reduced test case below reflects the ICE of the original
test case. It needs the -std=c++0x option.
struct A
{
virtual int foo();
};
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40975
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
20:51:00 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu May 5 20:50:57 2011
New Revision: 173451
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173451
Log:
PR c++/40975
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40975
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
21:02:09 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu May 5 21:02:06 2011
New Revision: 173452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173452
Log:
PR c++/40975
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40975
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05
21:02:53 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu May 5 21:02:51 2011
New Revision: 173454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173454
Log:
PR c++/40975
*
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
