--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-06 17:39
---
Let's add Benjamin for this one too.
Are you sure the template parameters and the defaults are documented for *all*
the other classes besides basic_string? Seems really weird.
--
paolo dot carlini at
--- Comment #9 from knocte at gmail dot com 2010-05-06 18:02 ---
Hello.
I'm in a position in which I cannot upgrade my Boost libraries right now.
So, is there a way that I can tell gcc to ignore this warning for now?
Thanks in advance.
--
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-05-06 18:57 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=20589)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20589action=view) [edit]
reduced testcase
Command line:
gcc -O1 -fgcse -findirect-inlining pr44012.c
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:11 ---
The other typedefs are documented in iosfwd e.g.
typedef basic_fstreamchar fstream;/// @isiosfwd
and are part of the io doxygen group, but std::string is not, so neither
std::string nor
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-06 19:14
---
Jon, if you already know the issue, I don't think Benjamin would take offense
if you assign it to yourself ;) the sooner we check in the 4.5.1 patches the
better, in my opinion.
--
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06
19:17 ---
Subject: Re: Using --enable-threads=solaris breaks near end of build in
boehm-gc configury
--- Comment #6 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:00 ---
This is now documented in
There is a old link under gcc.info / Node: Standards / 2.2 C++ language.
The link to the `http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/cxx0x_status.html' shows to the old
version 4.3. it has to be updated to 4.5
--
Summary: Old link inside the documentation
Product: gcc
Version:
--- Comment #18 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:23
---
(In reply to comment #16)
This is a glibc issue with software sin function.
Is there anything that we can do about this?
If not, this PR should be closed.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06
19:27 ---
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:20 ---
This is an Enhancement (EG: I wish
--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:30 ---
mine then
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06
19:32 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.4.0 20090204 - Configury from GNU linker to Operating
System's Linker broke (reverse works OK)
--- Comment #8 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:05 ---
As I've said
--- Comment #20 from rus at google dot com 2010-05-06 19:43 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Note that in all those patches, the open curly brackets are in the wrong
place:
in GCC, C++ runtime included, must *always* follow a newline. Just stylistic
issues, of course.
Thank you for
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:44 ---
basic_stringstream etc. are missing docs for their default template arguments
too, I think it's because the doxygen comments are on the class template
definitions, not on the forward declarations in iosfwd and
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:54
---
But what's the *point* of having such a configuration, except as a prove
of `we can do that'? Any actual problem that would be solved this way?
Same as on Linux: the compiler will be faster and able to
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:58 ---
Subject: Bug 44014
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 6 19:57:58 2010
New Revision: 159126
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159126
Log:
2010-05-06 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
PR
--- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 20:04 ---
Subject: Bug 44014
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 6 20:03:35 2010
New Revision: 159127
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159127
Log:
2010-05-06 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
PR
--- Comment #7 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 20:04 ---
that was easier than I thought it would be - fixed
(the online docs will need to be regenerated before the changes show up)
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-06 20:24
---
At your ease of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
The following valid code snippet triggers an ICE on trunk:
=
struct A
{
templateint void foo();
};
templateint N struct B : A
{
B() { fooN(); }
};
B0 b;
=
bug.cc: In constructor 'BN::B() [with int N = 0]':
bug.cc:11:6:
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44017
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-05-06 21:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=20590)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20590action=view)
A patch
This patch avoids ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44012
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:06 ---
Patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-05/msg00040.html
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:20 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Patch broke IA64 and was reverted (cf. 40969). Proper fix is PR 40976 which
should solve several of the remaining LTO problems as well.
With the above statement, is this PR still needed?
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:29 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29819 ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:29 ---
*** Bug 40993 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:38 ---
One possibility is to see if the glibc patches for this issue can be merged
into eglibc... Maxim what do you think?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:40
---
Related discussion: PR35707
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I have some code (will be attached) that fails to compile with GCC 4.5.0 if you
use the exact right (wrong) flags:
$ g++-4.5.0 -fPIC -m32 -O2 -c cpuid.cpp -o cpuid.o
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.5.0/include/cpuid.h: In function 'unsigned
int get_x86_cache_line_size()':
--- Comment #1 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2010-05-06 22:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=20591)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20591action=view)
Testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44018
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 00:22 ---
This is fixed for 4.6.0. Iain, if you want to put this into 4.5.1, I'll
approve that.
--
mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 00:29 ---
It is triggered by revision 147395:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00369.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-05-07 00:32 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
That patch fixes all testcases and flag combinations I tried (eg. gcc doesn't
crash)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44012
-prefix=/opt/gnu --prefix=/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6.0
--with-gmp=/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.5.0 --enable-threads=posix --enable-debug=no
--disable-nls --without-cloog --without-ppl
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,java,ada,obj-c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20100506 (experimental) [trunk revision
--- Comment #10 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-05-07 02:32
---
I've been working on a patch that fixes the original reported problem by adding
a little logic to tree-ssa-reassoc.c to make it look for places where it can
use combine_comparisons. Note that this test case does
On Linux/x86-64, revision 159144 gave:
[...@gnu-28 0001]$ /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/usr/bin/gfortran -c -o
umlau6.o -DSPEC_CPU2000_LP64 -O2 -ffast-math -O3 -ffast-math
-funroll-loops umlau6.f
umlau6.f: In function \u2018umlau6\u2019:
umlau6.f:3:0: internal compiler error:
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 04:57 ---
#0 0x00b6babf in bmp_iter_set_init (bi=0x7fffdda0, map=0x0,
start_bit=0, bit_no=0x7fffddcc) at ../../src/gcc/bitmap.h:227
#1 0x00b79d6e in remove_dead_inserted_code ()
at
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 05:16 ---
It is caused by revision 159106:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-05/msg00156.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44020
101 - 137 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
