hello
i found some bug gcc 4.6.2 when i build asterisk 1.8
All started when i want build ipsec-0.8.0
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ipsec-tools/files/ipsec-tools/0.8.0/
I had a simple linux PC with installed OS Linux CentOS 6.2
CentOS 6.2 have a rpm installed gcc version 4.4.6-3
with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52410
Bug #: 52410
Summary: BUG gcc 4.6.2 Illegal Instruction (core dumped)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
Bug #: 52411
Summary: BUG gcc 4.6.2 Illegal Instruction (core dumped)
asterisk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 08:41:28
UTC ---
Created attachment 26768
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26768
Patch to add DImode abs
The attached patch adds DImode abs and did not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
08:44:14 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Feb 28 08:44:08 2012
New Revision: 184614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184614
Log:
PR target/49868
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52261
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
08:44:15 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Feb 28 08:44:08 2012
New Revision: 184614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184614
Log:
PR target/49868
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52148
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
08:51:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Feb 28 08:51:39 2012
New Revision: 184615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184615
Log:
PR target/52148
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52412
Bug #: 52412
Summary: another unnecessary register move on arm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
09:00:21 UTC ---
F, that backtrace was due to an error in the patch I had to look at what
simplify_and_tree was doing.
genattrtab is trying to simplify huge and-trees,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-28 09:02:04 UTC ---
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52148
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52278
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52261
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52400
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
09:13:44 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 09:13:40 2012
New Revision: 184618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184618
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52400
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52402
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=52402
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
09:15:54 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 09:15:49 2012
New Revision: 184619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184619
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
09:18:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 09:18:35 2012
New Revision: 184620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184620
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52395
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
Bug #: 52413
Summary: Incorrect behavior of FRACTION when applied to a
constant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52410
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
09:39:21 UTC ---
*** Bug 52410 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Bug #: 52414
Summary: [4.7 Regression] syntax error in VERSION script
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
09:54:01 UTC ---
Strangely,
/* PR tree-optimization/52406 */
extern void abort (void);
struct { int f1; } a[2];
int *b, *const k = a[1].f1;
static int **c = b;
int e, f, d;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|I/O wrong output with |I/O output of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
10:14:57 UTC ---
Indeed, it is pcom that breaks it.
Before pcom we have:
MEM[(int *)a + 4B] = 1;
D.1723_6 = a[1].f1;
but pcom doesn't consider the first store to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52414
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
10:21:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 28 10:21:03 2012
New Revision: 184624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184624
Log:
PR bootstrap/52414
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
10:20:58 UTC ---
Like Andrey said, we verify that x86_64-linux bootstraps with sel-sched when
submitting patches, but I do not remember any specific figures from the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
Bug #: 52415
Summary: memcpy to local variable generates unnecessary stack
frame for armv7
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52405
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52404
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
11:06:16 UTC ---
We have
Creating dr for MEM[(int *)a + 4B]
base_address: a
offset from base address: 0
constant offset from base address: 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
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=52415
--- Comment #2 from Jay Foad jay.foad at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 11:51:00
UTC ---
On the tree level nothing guarantees that 'p' is properly aligned.
This is a digression, but what about C99 (Committee Draft -- April 12, 2011)
6.3.2.3p7:
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
12:02:18 UTC ---
Triggered by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184435
Testcase:
/* PR target/52407 */
extern void abort (void);
typedef long long V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
12:15:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
On the tree level nothing guarantees that 'p' is properly aligned.
This is a digression, but what about C99 (Committee Draft
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52416
Bug #: 52416
Summary: Branch coverage differences between 4.4 and 4.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
version 4.7.0 20120228 (experimental) (GCC)
GNU C (GCC) version 4.7.0 20120228 (experimental) (avr)
compiled by GNU C version 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291], GMP
version 4.3.2, MPFR version 2.4.2, MPC version 0.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52410
--- Comment #2 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 12:51:05 UTC ---
gcc-4.7-20120225/configure
--disable-cloog-version-check --enable-cloog-backend=isl --enable-lto
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #5 from Jay Foad jay.foad at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 13:03:50
UTC ---
But to answer your question, how you can assert it is properly aligned, in gcc
4.7.0 you can write:
__builtin_memcpy (i, __builtin_assume_aligned (p, sizeof
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #3 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 13:07:14 UTC ---
gcc-4.7-20120225/configure
--disable-cloog-version-check --enable-cloog-backend=isl --enable-lto
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52405
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #4 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 13:38:29 UTC ---
(gdb) r -vvvc
Starting program:
/home/nikolns/bld/aster/gcc-4.7/asterisk-1.8.9.2/main/asterisk -vvvc
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread 0x77fd9700
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #5 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-28 13:45:16 UTC ---
cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 4
model name : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 3.06GHz
stepping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||50067
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52405
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
14:41:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(gdb) r -vvvc
Starting program:
/home/nikolns/bld/aster/gcc-4.7/asterisk-1.8.9.2/main/asterisk -vvvc
[Thread debugging using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50181
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
14:53:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 26769
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26769
Smaller C test case
Here is a smaller C test case that doesn't require
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2012-02-28 15:23:38 UTC ---
If the libstdc++ people are going to do something for 4.7, it really needs
to be done very soon.
Let's assume glibc should at least
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
15:26:13 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:26:02 2012
New Revision: 184626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184626
Log:
PR target/49448
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
15:28:39 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:28:32 2012
New Revision: 184627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184627
Log:
2012-02-28 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
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=51785
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-28
15:35:59 UTC ---
If the release managers agree, I would be in favor of a quick fix per Comment
3, with a huge comment in the code explaining the issue. But I can't test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #22 from pmarlier at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 15:37:57 UTC ---
Author: pmarlier
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:37:41 2012
New Revision: 184628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184628
Log:
2012-02-27 Jack Howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
15:40:40 UTC ---
Ok, with additional -fno-inline -gnatpg I can reproduce even with the commands
I tried.
The dead_debug* stuff doesn't handle this probably because the hard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-02-28
15:47:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
If the libstdc++ people are going to do something for 4.7, it really needs
to be done very soon.
The question is: what do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
15:49:26 UTC ---
I'm ok with #c3 patch + comment if it works, using special configure macro
instead of __GLIBC_PREREQ is IMHO undesirable, because then if you build gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
--- Comment #4 from Robert Hayward therobbot at gmail dot com 2012-02-28
15:53:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 26770
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26770
test program to reproduce bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52418
Bug #: 52418
Summary: (unnecessary) automatic reallocation of lhs causes
segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-28 16:09:52 UTC ---
I can confirm that a build for arm-linux-gnueabi completes and do some
cross-testing on qemu if that's deemed to be enough.
Any other ideas for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51534
--- Comment #3 from mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 16:14:03 UTC ---
Author: mgretton
Date: Tue Feb 28 16:13:52 2012
New Revision: 184629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184629
Log:
PR target/51534
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51534
--- Comment #4 from mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 16:17:44 UTC ---
Author: mgretton
Date: Tue Feb 28 16:17:36 2012
New Revision: 184630
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184630
Log:
PR target/51534
Add testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
16:18:30 UTC ---
Ideally, when using
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include stdio.h
in a C++ program ::gets wouldn't be available (the _GNU_SOURCE requests GNU
namespace rather than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52151
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||therobbot at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52418
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
16:33:42 UTC ---
I wonder if df_reg_chain_unlink/df_install_ref shouldn't just ignore
DEBUG_INSN
refs when updating df-hard_regs_live_count array, do we care at all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48058
--- Comment #6 from Robert Hayward therobbot at gmail dot com 2012-02-28
16:36:52 UTC ---
48058(In reply to comment #4)
Created attachment 26770 [details]
test program to reproduce bug
Sorry about that, attached to the wrong bug. It was meant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
16:41:04 UTC ---
Untested fix. Not sure if that is the way we want to solve this though.
You might want to adjust the comment in df.h because it will be totally off.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-28
16:42:55 UTC ---
I suppose that post 4.7.0 we have to revisit this issue anyway, because C++11
definitely wants to declare std::gets, irrespective of C11. I'm wondering
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2012-02-28 17:05:50 UTC ---
2.15 has the gets prototype. It's 2.16 where it has been removed (but the
version in the headers only changes from 2.15 to 2.16 when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Bug #: 52419
Summary: Wrong expansion of misaligned vector store
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-28
18:25:54 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Joseph. Thus, to repeat, anything we do in terms of macros has to be
for *2.16* and later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52420
Bug #: 52420
Summary: ada build failure with -gdwarf-4
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52421
Bug #: 52421
Summary: SH Target: -fnon-call-exceptions prevents delay slot
filling
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52422
Bug #: 52422
Summary: [C++11][SFINAE] Hard errors with void or arithmetic
expressions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51752
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
20:08:44 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 28 20:08:39 2012
New Revision: 184638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184638
Log:
PR middle-end/51752
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++11] name lookup issue |[4.7 Regression] [C++11]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52191
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28
20:21:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 26774
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26774
patch to check new symbols are in new version names
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52191
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
