http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
Bug #: 51844
Summary: [4.7 regression] configuring with
--with-gxx-include-dir=absolute path adds a relative
(non-existing) C++ include dir
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
--- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-13 09:07:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Note, can't be reproduced on the trunk, the strcmp isn't DCEd there, but guess
the problem is just latent there.
Latent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-13 09:08:30 UTC ---
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
Bug #: 51845
Summary: [4.6 regression]
23_containers/unordered_multimap/erase/24061-multimap.
cc segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #31 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
09:26:45 UTC ---
Ok, so the following patch makes
extern __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
void open ()
{
}
void bar ()
{
open ();
}
void open ()
{
open
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
09:28:51 UTC ---
Sorry for the double commit - but I somehow midair collision didn't work as
expected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
09:27:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
/* The type used of array indices, amongst other things. */
typedef ssize_t index_type;
I just saw that GCC 4.7 uses now:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51840
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51843
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=51844
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.6.2 |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
--- Comment #27 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
10:11:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
Eric
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13 10:19:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #0)
/* The type used of array indices, amongst other things. */
typedef ssize_t index_type;
I just saw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-13 10:25:34 UTC ---
I've done some more digging and found that the EINVAL error is generated
inside libpthread.so, by a function called
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
10:34:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Yes, and no. It is perhaps a better match for the current frontend logic of
choosing a type equal to the pointer size, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
10:37:52 UTC ---
Nice digging. POSIX does say the INIT macro is for use when the mutex is
statically-allocated:
In cases where default mutex attributes are appropriate, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36758
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
11:21:34 UTC ---
OTOH as GIMPLE cannot deal with VLAs on the LHS of a CALL when not applying
RSO
the above is correct anyway.
Right, gimplify_return_expr already has a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
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=51842
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13 11:44:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Yes, and no. It is perhaps a better match for the current frontend logic of
choosing a type equal to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50313
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51829
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-01-13
12:04:02 UTC ---
Please do your best to distill a testcase of manageable size, a few KBs at
most: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51846
Bug #: 51846
Summary: Compiled programs suffer from infinite recursion when
using -finstrument-functions with optimizations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
--- Comment #30 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
12:05:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 13 12:05:27 2012
New Revision: 183153
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183153
Log:
2012-01-13 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid,|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50313
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
12:06:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 26314
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26314
smaller testcase
Better reduced testcase. Fails on trunk with -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51846
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Willmann daniel at totalueberwachung dot de
2012-01-13 12:20:25 UTC ---
Here's my gcc version, I noticed that Debian's GCC (tested gcc-4.53-10 as well
as gcc-4.6.2-11) works as expected.
alphaone@adrastea ~ $ gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
12:41:55 UTC ---
For s390 the first failing release was r181677.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
12:42:42 UTC ---
Yes Valgrind has S/390 support since release 3.7.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38813
Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38813
--- Comment #7 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2012-01-13 12:48:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
And the example that still fails:
--
module foo_mod
type foo_type
integer, allocatable :: idx(:)
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-01-13
12:56:03 UTC ---
Andreas, can you run the test under valgrind? Thanks in advance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51847
Bug #: 51847
Summary: incorrect primitive array initialization in generic
methods
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
13:07:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Andreas, can you run the test under valgrind? Thanks in advance.
I should better have mentioned that Valgrind on S/390 doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51848
Bug #: 51848
Summary: GCC is not able to vectorize when a constant value is
also added to the sum of array expression inside a
loop.
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51709
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
15:41:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jan 13 15:41:13 2012
New Revision: 183154
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183154
Log:
2012-01-13 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51620
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
15:49:35 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 13 15:49:29 2012
New Revision: 183155
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183155
Log:
PR c++/51620
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51620
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51374
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
15:58:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 26316
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26316
pr51374.diff (tentative patch against 4.7)
* combine.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51848
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=51374
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51225
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-01-13
16:24:07 UTC ---
Eh, thanks for the analysis. Is there some sort of conservative option here? I
don't think we want to take risks at this stage only for the sake of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39055
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
16:41:08 UTC ---
Pinged again about creating a core issue for this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
16:43:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
What do we want to do about C library visibility?
We can't redeclare all the types with default visibility, because we don't know
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-01-13
16:46:56 UTC ---
Thanks for your help Jon. Note the issue isn't just about std::use_facet, is
about std::codecvt too, any type we instantiate with mbstate_t.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
16:52:41 UTC ---
The right answer would seem to be wrapping includes of C headers in #pragma GCC
visibility push/pop, like many of the libsupc++ headers do. But I'm not sure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
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=51842
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
17:23:37 UTC ---
The last fix looks perfect, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51849
Bug #: 51849
Summary: -Wc99-compat would be considered useful
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51850
Bug #: 51850
Summary: debug mode for std::array and tr1::array
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
17:51:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 13 17:50:58 2012
New Revision: 183156
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183156
Log:
PR c++/51813
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51616
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51709
--- Comment #5 from John A. Van Boxtel johnvb at broadcom dot com 2012-01-13
18:39:43 UTC ---
Sorry about not understanding CS vs GNU release numbering and time
relationship. I now understand that CS versions may precede introduction into
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
18:55:24 UTC ---
I still can't reproduce this on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. I notice that you have a
lot of configure flags in your gcc -v output; mine is just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39055
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51851
Bug #: 51851
Summary: Overriding a function with a parameter of dependent
type fails to override.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51851
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
2012-01-13 19:13:13 UTC ---
Johannes Schaub says in both situations the question is whether the parameter
type adjustments happen immediately or after instantiation (when T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51842
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
--- Comment #34 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
20:06:25 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 13 20:06:16 2012
New Revision: 183161
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183161
Log:
PR c++/20681
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
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=12245
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Bug #: 51852
Summary: [regression] [c++11] tree check: expected tree_list,
have HßèMÕþÿøtxøtsø
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40778
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14179
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
20:36:16 UTC ---
PR51471 patch has been committed by now, can you recheck if it didn't fix also
this PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183038
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48351
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13 20:42:07
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 13 20:42:01 2012
New Revision: 183162
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183162
Log:
2012-01-13 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51851
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51853
Bug #: 51853
Summary: MPFR assertion failure with Python: p = 2 p =
((mpfr_prec_t)((mpfr_uprec_t)(~(mpfr_uprec_t)0)1))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51808
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48351
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
21:14:42 UTC ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.7).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51733
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48351
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-01-13 21:25:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I still can't reproduce this on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. I notice that you have a
lot of configure flags in your gcc -v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14179
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #5763|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14179
--- Comment #62 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
22:08:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #61)
4.7 14s 1704M (r183161, optimized, --enable-checking=release)
Making the change to convert_to_integer mentioned in 12245 reduces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36545
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41356
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51634
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-13
22:17:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Fixed on trunk as long as explicit allocations are inserted, as below.
I will raise a separate PR for the lack of automatic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26219
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22210
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51854
Bug #: 51854
Summary: ICE in mangle.c with literal of complex floating type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26894
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51854
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
