[Bug c++/41161] Hello World in C++ ISO does NOT compile

-- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41161

[Bug c++/23702] volatile const members of structures not treated as volatile

--- Comment #4 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:59 --- gcc 3.3 has not been maintained for a long time. Since you say that gcc 4.0 fixes the bug, I think we can close the bug. W. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Adde

[Bug c++/23257] Incorrect exception-handling behavior with references

--- Comment #6 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:58 --- Confirmed. Nathan, is this the bug you had worked on? If so, it may be of interest to add a link to your patch to this PR for reference. W. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed

[Bug c++/40146] Unexplained "'' is used uninitialized in this function" warning

--- Comment #3 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:54 --- Hm, can you try to come up with a smaller testcase for which it may be a bit simpler to see what is going on? Thanks W. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/41054] Cryptic error message when type is not defined.

--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 13:53 --- I think this is a duplicate of PR 16663, just a different testcase. One can possibly construct a lot of different testcases for mispelled/undefined types, depending on the context where the declaration takes place (retu

[Bug c++/16663] Poor parse error recovery with mispelled type in function declaration

--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 13:53 --- *** Bug 41054 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/41153] ICE in building Qt4 src/core

--- Comment #1 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:46 --- Please follow the instructions listed in as mentioned by the error message. In particular, we need a preprocessed testcase. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Rem

[Bug c++/41135] Uninitialized variable usage warning broken

--- Comment #3 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:45 --- Agreed -- I do get the warning from current mainline as well. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/41127] [4.4/4.5 regression] unnamed bitfield declaration parser regression

--- Comment #1 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:43 --- This is an interesting one: enum EE {ee}; struct D { enum EE : 8; }; In C++98, this looks like an unnamed bit field as part of struct D, but with C++0x we apparent

[Bug c++/41131] [4.3 Regression] non-lvalue in unary `&' wrongly accepted

--- Comment #10 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:39 --- Was already confirmed. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c/41163] verify_gimple fails

--- Comment #1 from hideaki at sogetthis dot com 2009-08-25 13:36 --- Created an attachment (id=18422) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18422&action=view) testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41163

[Bug c/41163] New: verify_gimple fails

Attached .i file throws -- $ gcc -c grep.i grep.i: In function ‘cmd_grep’: grep.i:9236:5: error: type mismatch in address expression struct option[] * struct option[41] * options.0 = &options; grep.i:9236:5: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed Please submit a full bug

[Bug c++/41104] overload resolution does not find templated function (zero -> pointer) (2)

--- Comment #1 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:31 --- Yes, I think this is an exact duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23055 *** -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/23055] overload resolution does not find templated function (zero -> pointer)

--- Comment #4 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:31 --- *** Bug 41104 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/41002] Redundant diagnostic when class member function's name overlaps with class field's name

--- Comment #7 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:29 --- I would think so. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug c++/40997] Wrong address returned in covariant return

--- Comment #8 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:27 --- Already confirmed. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/40942] GCC accepts code that Comeau and MSVC deems invalid.

--- Comment #2 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:24 --- Why would this be ambiguous? A string literal has type "array of n const char" (see 2.13.4/1), so it should go with the array constructor. Do you disagree? W. -- bangerth at gmail dot com changed: What

[Bug middle-end/40106] Time increase with inlining for the Polyhedron test air.f90

--- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-25 12:51 --- > I don't think the issue is pow expansion. What I do see from different means is that the number of calls to pow() increases from 63,907,869 to 1,953,139,629. Since pow() is not exactly cheap, I think this could

[Bug middle-end/40106] Time increase with inlining for the Polyhedron test air.f90

--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-08-25 12:40 --- Subject: Re: Time increase with inlining for the Polyhedron test air.f90 On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote: > --- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-25 12:30 > ---

[Bug middle-end/40106] Time increase with inlining for the Polyhedron test air.f90

--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-25 12:30 --- >From comment #9, I think inlining is just exposing a latent missed optimization related to the way the middle end handle pow(). This is why I changed the summary. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=

[Bug middle-end/40106] Time increase with inlining for the Polyhedron test air.f90

--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 12:22 --- We clone quite a few functions with -fwhole-file but appearantly we fail to apply constant propagation for &CONST_DECL arguments which is a pity. In fact we seem to clone them without any change. -- rguenth at

[Bug bootstrap/40950] Bootstrap fails with in-tree gmp and without system C++ compiler

--- Comment #9 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk 2009-08-25 12:06 --- (In reply to comment #7) > Use --enable-stage1-languages=c,c++ I believe that this bug also applies to powerpc-apple-darwin8 and i686-apple-darwin9. the suggested remedy also works. This was introduce

[Bug middle-end/40106] Time increase for the Polyhedron test air.f90

--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-25 12:01 --- > I see a similar slowdown with the patch in ... I have again forgotten to say that I saw the slowdown without the -fwhole-file option. I have changed the summary to reflect that. -- dominiq at lps dot ens dot f

[Bug middle-end/40106] Time increase with inlining for the Polyhedron test air.f90

--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-25 11:55 --- I see a similar slowdown with the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-08/msg00361.html (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-08/msg00377.html). I suspect it is related to pr41098, but I don't know how to sho

[Bug middle-end/41149] -fdump-tree-original and procedure pointer components

--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 11:21 --- Please drop the patch in gcc-patches as well (just post it with a comment that you've committed it to fix this PR). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41149

[Bug libobjc/34315] libobjc warnings with Win64 target=x86_64-pc-mingw32

--- Comment #7 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 10:36 --- Ok I fixed at revision 151077 the issues about gthr-win32.h, the objective-c library warnings aren't fixed by this. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34315

[Bug c++/41144] [4.5 Regression] ice for legal code with -O2 in get_alias_set

--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 10:35 --- /space/rguenther/trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec26.C:11:36: internal compiler error: canonical types differ for identical types const X [] and const X []^M Please submit a full bug report,^M with preproc

[Bug target/41156] [4.4/4.5 Regression] zlib segfault in inflate_table() compiled w/ -O -msse2 ftree-vectorize

--- Comment #1 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-25 10:20 --- Fix: I got bug with -msse only, not -msse2. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156

[Bug middle-end/41149] -fdump-tree-original and procedure pointer components

--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:38 --- Fixed with r151075. Closing. -- janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/41149] -fdump-tree-original and procedure pointer components

--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:35 --- Subject: Bug 41149 Author: janus Date: Tue Aug 25 09:35:41 2009 New Revision: 151075 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151075 Log: 2009-08-25 Janus Weil PR middle-end/41149 * t

[Bug middle-end/41149] -fdump-tree-original and procedure pointer components

--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-08-25 09:13 --- Subject: Re: -fdump-tree-original and procedure pointer components On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, janus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:08 --- > The patch i

[Bug middle-end/41149] -fdump-tree-original and procedure pointer components

--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 09:08 --- The patch in comment #2 was successfully bootstrapped and regtested. Ok for trunk? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41149

<    1   2