On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Adam adam.j.le...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
When using -flto is there a way to tell gcc to not inline a particular
function? attribute noinline appears to have no effect. I am using gcc 4.7.2.
The use case is for certain functions that cause optimization problems
Hi,
I was looking into PR54218 and had some doubts about SSA partition type and
how parameters are handled by it.
The issue happened because the stack variables were expanded in 2 places one is
in assign_params_setup_stack and the other when
the expansion of SA partitions are done.
The
Tobi,
Can you update the isl and cloog tarballs in the gcc infrastructure
directory
to the new isl 0.11.1 and cloog 0.18.0 releases from...
ftp://ftp.linux.student.kuleuven.be/pub/people/skimo/isl//isl-0.11.1.tar.bz2
http://www.bastoul.net/cloog/pages/download/cloog-0.18.0.tar.gz
It looks
Hi
I was trying to start an RTEMS target test sweep and was building a native
compiler as the baseline to build the crosses with. The native compiler
configuration failures to build. This is on a Fedora 16 x86_64 machine
with this as the distribution compiler I am starting with. GCC reports:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Adam adam.j.le...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
When using -flto is there a way to tell gcc to not inline a particular
function? attribute noinline appears to have no effect. I am
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
Tobi,
Can you update the isl and cloog tarballs in the gcc infrastructure
directory
to the new isl 0.11.1 and cloog 0.18.0 releases from...
ftp://ftp.linux.student.kuleuven.be/pub/people/skimo/isl//isl-0.11.1.tar.bz2
Adam Lewis adam.j.le...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Adam adam.j.le...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
When using -flto is there a way to tell gcc to not inline a
particular
function? attribute
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Richard Günther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Oy vey, he's changed his name again.
Ian
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Richard Günther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Adam Lewis adam.j.le...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Adam adam.j.le...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
When using
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:06:46PM +0100, Richard Günther wrote:
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
Tobi,
Can you update the isl and cloog tarballs in the gcc infrastructure
directory
to the new isl 0.11.1 and cloog 0.18.0 releases from...
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
The main issue is that the test in configure is brain-dead and demands an
explicit version.
Any reason not to fix that?
Ian
Hi,
This update fixed the linker regression:
http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14980
H.J.
This is the beta release of binutils 2.23.51.0.8 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2012 1218 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20121221 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20121221/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 12/21/2012 08:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
The main issue is that the test in configure is brain-dead and demands an
explicit version.
Any reason not to fix that?
As far as I remember, the explicit
On 12/21/2012 08:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
The main issue is that the test in configure is brain-dead and demands an
explicit version.
Any reason not to fix that?
As far as I remember, the explicit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #39 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-12-21 08:02:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 29019
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29019
objdump of the offending routine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #40 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-12-21 08:03:49 UTC ---
After getting an asan instrumented libgfortran to work (thanks hjl, jakub), I'm
still getting the error message.
==66645== ERROR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55772
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #41 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
08:11:19 UTC ---
Wild guess: does Fortran have any custom unwinding mechanism (like exceptions
in C++ or longjmp in C)?
For C/C++ we've spent quite some time to get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #42 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-12-21 08:18:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
Wild guess: does Fortran have any custom unwinding mechanism (like exceptions
in C++ or longjmp in C)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #43 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
08:23:09 UTC ---
false stack-buffer-overflow reports may appear if you have stack unwinding
*somewhere*, not necessary in this routine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55772
Matthias Urlichs matthias at urlichs dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 09:38:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I can replicate on x86_64 with the jdom.jar from jdom-1.1.3-3.fc18.noarch but
not with the older jdom.jar from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 09:42:28
UTC ---
The crash should of course not happen, but since jdom now depends on jaxen just
including the jaxen.jar on the classpath seems to work around the issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
09:46:41 UTC ---
Just for the record:
llvm implementation of asan does not catch these either for the same reason.
It would be interesting to find a way to implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55766
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55663
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-12-21
10:06:50 UTC ---
I'm beginning to think the test case is invalid. The operands of the
multiplication in f1 are unsigned long and float, but they are not converted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55770
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
10:12:24 UTC ---
Yeah, it's very broken - don't use it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
10:30:54 UTC ---
It no longer reproduces for me ... we no longer unswitch. But the issue
is certainly latent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52061
Jean-Pierre Flori jpflori at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
10:32:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 10:32:43 2012
New Revision: 194659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194659
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53866
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Bug #: 55773
Summary: C++ class object destructors are not called which a
static class object in destructor function in a shared
library after dlclose is called.
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55765
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
11:57:41 UTC ---
but of course even better would be to fix the reason for this hack - why
are those Ada files built with a C++ compiler in the first place?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #35 from albcl111 muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com 2012-12-21
11:58:37 UTC ---
Well said….positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked
to check out new stuff you weblog
airlinesplanet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54843
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Bug #: 55774
Summary: AVX integer store segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
12:47:54 UTC ---
Ick, I had
Index: gcc/cprop.c
===
--- gcc/cprop.c (revision 194658)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 13:48:19
UTC ---
Honza, any thoughts on this (both the combine vs. strset and local register
vars vs. string insns)?
Well, Steven's suggestion to track local explicit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 13:49:15
UTC ---
Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
Well, replacing parameter by known constant should not pessimize in general...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
13:55:41 UTC ---
Or rather convert.c:convert_to_real:
/* Propagate the cast into the operation. */
if (itype != type FLOAT_TYPE_P (type))
switch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
13:57:40 UTC ---
And as usual - convert.c contains premature optimization (this one hardly
worth) and/or duplicates of fold-const.c. Thus removing the whole
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
13:59:29 UTC ---
Yeah, I wonder if that transformation wasn't meant to be guarded by also
FLOAT_TYPE_P (itype), comparing TYPE_PRECISION of a floating type with say
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:01:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
Well, replacing parameter by known constant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:08:24 UTC ---
Btw, one thing to improve would be the excessive number of aliasing runtime
checks the vectorizer currently generates. That would also help himeno.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:10:19 UTC ---
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't right
now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:12:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar.
I think that would not help as we'd likely propagate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:16:09 UTC ---
When writting symtab_real_symbol_p I made external nodes to not be real symbols
unless they are explicitelly called or refereed.
The reason is that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 14:22:28
UTC ---
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't
right
now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55106
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:27:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I'm still hitting this failure when building GMP 5.1.0 for i686-w64-mingw32:
libtool: compile: i686-w64-mingw32-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 14:29:40
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:29:34 2012
New Revision: 194663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194663
Log:
2012-12-21 Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:33:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:13 2012
New Revision: 194665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194665
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:34:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:59 2012
New Revision: 194666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194666
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
15:01:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 29021
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29021
Patch I am testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Bug #: 55775
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE when building pari
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #12 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
15:59:36 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Dec 21 15:59:27 2012
New Revision: 194669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194669
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 16:15:34
UTC ---
As another data point, in our internal benchmarks I had tried a few
values and 99.9% gave the best performance. Just going down to 99.0%
reduced the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55776
Bug #: 55776
Summary: -Wshadow generates an incorrect warning with enum
classes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-12-21
16:26:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 16:51:41
UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't look down the PR - I thought that we were just at the stage of
your opening email :-(
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55777
Bug #: 55777
Summary: Inlining nomips16 function into mips16 function can
result in undefined builtins
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52152
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Bug #: 55778
Summary: Variadic template extension possibly wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
18:37:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Am i wrong ?
Yes. The foo(std::string const, Args...) overload is not in scope within
foo(int, Args...) so the call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55779
Bug #: 55779
Summary: Debug program abort on pthread_exit() while using
-static-libgcc and -static-libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 18:54:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Dec 21 18:54:00 2012
New Revision: 194676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194676
Log:
2012-12-21 Steve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55780
Bug #: 55780
Summary: effective targets arm_arch_v*_multilib are not strict
enough
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #2 from ph dunski koala01 at free dot fr 2012-12-21 19:17:05 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
Am i wrong ?
Yes. The foo(std::string const, Args...) overload is not in scope within
foo(int,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #4 from ph dunski koala01 at free dot fr 2012-12-21 19:57:05 UTC
---
It is what i did ;)
But, i'm really not convicted, because, in my head, we should have a SFINAE
behaviour which should fall back into the good overloaded
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
