http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-03-10
09:22:04 UTC ---
If I revert this part of r139061 then things work again:
* gimplify.c (gimplify_conversion): Use maybe_fold_offset_to_address.
--- gcc/gimplify.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 09:33:49 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, mikpe at it dot uu.se wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
09:36:12 UTC ---
c's vnode is first varpool_mark_needed_node, then it is again marked as not
needed by cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes (so far both for -O0 and -O1+)
and as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-03-10 09:36:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 23610
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23610
Patch to fix rounding issue
Proposing this patch (untested)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-03-10 09:39:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 23611
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23611
Comprehensive test for IEEE 754-2008 clause 5.12.2 compliant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48047
Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23611|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
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=48055
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
10:18:52 UTC ---
This looks like a linker issue. I remember seeing similar errors when
using GNU ld and not gold.
And I don't think GCC produces intermediate files named
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
Summary: lto throws out needed symbols when linking QtScript
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-10
10:22:48 UTC ---
Thanks for the analysis. I knew about the difference between signed and
unsigned, makes sense. Not knowing in detail the internals of the optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
10:23:21 UTC ---
I think you need to use the attribute used on cti_vm_throw when using LTO as
the symbol usage is hidden from the compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-03-10 10:54:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the fast reation.
I would like to point out that, at least on x86_64, the only one that does not
work is
unsigned int
unsigned long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |testsuite
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48057
Summary: Assert_Failure sinfo.adb:1985 when = put instead of :=
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
11:14:41 UTC ---
Are there conflicting definitions somewhere? Then it would indeed be a
testsuite bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-10
11:30:58 UTC ---
Well, on x86, in terms of addressing unsigned int (aka long) *is* the widest
type, morally unsigned long long doesn't count.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43421
Mattias Engdegård mattiase at acm dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48056
--- Comment #3 from bero at arklinux dot org 2011-03-10 11:48:47 UTC ---
Thanks, works.
Re-filed as WebKit bug
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46788
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47779
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=48058
Summary: [4.6 Regression] reallocation of array during
constructor assignement
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-03-10 12:09:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Are there conflicting definitions somewhere? Then it would indeed be a
testsuite bug.
No, these are the only definitions for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43421
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
12:34:04 UTC ---
The code emitting the warning was removed without replacement.
The code isn't dubious but it shows that GCC 4.4 has bugs (but as we warn
we also tell you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
12:34:57 UTC ---
It's mixing VLA unaware foldings into the mids of GIMPLE which is the
root of the issue though. The issue is latent on trunk.
Patch for the first
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 12:36:33 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
12:46:33 UTC ---
No it isn't. But given that fold at this place doesn't even
fill in the array-ref element-size slot but provides NULL_TREE
it is probably a fix for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48044
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-03-10 12:51:19 UTC
---
I wonder if cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes shouldn't be somehow alias pairs
aware (can it e.g. call find_aliases_1 again?), or at least for !optimize
shouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #59 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-03-10 12:53:58
UTC ---
How do you do this with make -f client.mk profiledbuild?
To answer my own question:
Just edit ./configure and ./js/src/configure and add
-flto=4
No, these are the only definitions for the particular testcase.
Hmm, in every case it is GNU ld bug - the GNU ld internal ironly section should
not be leaking
to user warnings. Please fill in GNU ld PR.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-03-10 12:56:56 UTC
---
No, these are the only definitions for the particular testcase.
Hmm, in every case it is GNU ld bug - the GNU ld internal ironly section should
not be leaking
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 12:57:59 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
13:04:17 UTC ---
That would work, too. You see no problem with a NULL operand 3
of array-refs? If you create an array with a variable lower bound,
take its address,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-10 13:07:16 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
13:10:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23614
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23614
patch
testing appreciated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47989
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-mrecip causes 482.sphinx3 |-mrecip
«:
a.f90:14:0: interner Compiler-Fehler: in gfc_conv_component_ref, bei
fortran/trans-expr.c:523
Fortran version:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.6.0 20110310 (experimental)
I know that the length specification in a_string is a little bit creepy, but it
is valid. I had a discussion with the NAG about this before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47989
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-03-10
14:01:25 UTC ---
A similar problem occurs with the polyhedron test aermod.f90 (see pr34702).
Feeding rcps sequences into call stmts is probably never a very good
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-03-10
14:03:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Created attachment 23614 [details]
patch
testing appreciated
Thanks, fixes the ICE in 4.5 and 4.4 crosses to m68k-linux. I'm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48060
Summary: internal compiler error: in dfs_enumerate_from, at
cfganal.c:1209
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2011-03-10 14:06:06 UTC ---
I have removed this character function from my project and found the same ICE
message with other, non character-valued functions of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2011-03-10 14:19:35 UTC ---
On 03/10/2011 12:01 AM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I suspect, but have not yet verified, that this is related to
// Inhibit implicit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
14:27:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created attachment 23608 [details]
gcc46-pr48043.patch
Fix (tested just with cross on the pr47201.c testcase). Could you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
Kacper Kowalik xarthisius.kk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
14:37:39 UTC ---
If there isn't a mode mismatch in the instruction stream, then no.
The problem is that because of the delegitimizate address bug adjust_insn
in var-tracking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-03-10 14:39:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
No, these are the only definitions for the particular testcase.
Hmm, in every case it is GNU ld bug - the GNU ld internal ironly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48061
Summary: Internal compiler error in spill_failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48061
Matthew Gretton-Dann mgretton at sourceware dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47198
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
15:21:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 10 15:21:00 2011
New Revision: 170847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170847
Log:
PR c++/47198
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
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=48060
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48000
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-03-10 16:07:34 UTC ---
In the Firefox case sqlite3.o gets compiled correctly,
it is libmozsqlite3.so that segfaults when compiled with -flto
and -fprofile-use :
gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-03-10 16:26:01
UTC ---
gcc -Wall -W -Wno-unused -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -W -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -march=native -fpermissive -fno-strict-aliasing -pthread -pipe
-DNDEBUG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
Summary: `shadowed declaration is here' should be a note
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48055
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #38 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-10 16:58:38 UTC ---
While the latter is fixed, I think the _REENTRANT issue isn't. Or is it?
If it it not fixed, I think we should have (a different) PR open to track that
issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48061
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
17:00:10 UTC ---
Another test (from the dup).
int __attribute__ ((vector_size (32))) x;
void
foo (void)
{
x = x;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mgretton at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47278
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
18:04:03 UTC ---
Reduced:
template class T
struct scoped_refptr {
operator T*() const;
};
class EventParameters { };
class HttpResponseHeaders;
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
18:08:52 UTC ---
really reduced:
class Incomplete;
struct Ptr
{
operator Incomplete*();
};
int main()
{
Ptr p;
*p;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
18:10:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 10 18:10:14 2011
New Revision: 170851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170851
Log:
PR debug/48043
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48043
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_stmts failed: conversion
of register to a different size with
-fno-early-inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-03-10 18:39:21 UTC ---
Here's what I got:
(gdb) set follow-fork-mode child
(gdb) run -plugin /usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.0/liblto_plugin.so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #118 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 18:50:12 UTC ---
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:59 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Hm, there doesn't seem to be a runtime testcase attached to this bug, so I
can't produce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
18:50:19 UTC ---
Again caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161655
setup_one_parameter has:
if (value
value != error_mark_node
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
19:09:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 23617
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23617
gcc46-pr48063.patch
This seems to fix it, but no idea whether it is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-03-10 19:13:55 UTC ---
And the same with debugging symbols:
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
[Switching to process 5046]
0x0086d41c in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48064
Summary: Optimizer produces suboptimal code for e.g. x = x ^ (x
1)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #119 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 19:55:54 UTC ---
It's nearly impossible to examine the assembly code responsible for the FFT in
the package I set up in the previous comment. If you want a runtime benchmark
for this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48065
Summary: LTO: assertion failed in optimize_inline_calls, at
tree-inline.c:4246
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48065
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2011-03-10 20:00:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 23619
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23619
backtrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42976
Georg-Johann Lay avr at gjlay dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avr at gjlay dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42976
Eric Weddington eric.weddington at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
21:20:52 UTC ---
Thank you for reducing this.
Here is what I understand from the reduced test case.
For the expression *p the compiler uses overload resolution to
determine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
21:30:34 UTC ---
It doesn't need to be a pointer to non-class type; a pointer to class is itself
a non-class type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #120 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 22:00:22 UTC ---
At
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/bugzilla/15/
I've put a tarfile and instructions that allow one to build Gambit-C in
a way that splits out the FFT code into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
22:26:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
It doesn't need to be a pointer to non-class type; a pointer to class is
itself
a non-class type.
Indeed. And the example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48029
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
22:37:27 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 10 22:37:22 2011
New Revision: 170853
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170853
Log:
PR c++/48029
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48059
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
--- Comment #9 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
22:53:42 UTC ---
Yes, I was confused. This code is valid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46824
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Segfault with SUM of
zero-sized array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-10
23:04:11 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Mar 10 23:04:05 2011
New Revision: 170854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170854
Log:
PR 47952
* trans-mem.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37430
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
