http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
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=58605
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
Re initialization: I would think that the usage of uninitialized state is a
wording issue that should better be clarified by a library issue. I don't think
that the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58605
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, Daniel. I think it would be totally reasonable to call this a bug in
C++ rather than a bug in libstdc++.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58605
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Yasskin from comment #2)
It would still make sense to keep this issue open as Deferred waiting for the
corresponding library issue resolution. I'll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58604
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 3 20:33:05 2013
New Revision: 203187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203187root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-03 John Woolverton
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58604
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58606
Bug ID: 58606
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with specialization
in variadic template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58607
Bug ID: 58607
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE with undeclared variable in
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58608
Bug ID: 58608
Summary: Bootstrap fails with rev 202897, undefined references
in libstdc++.a
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58609
Bug ID: 58609
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with uninitialized
variable in constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58610
Bug ID: 58610
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with constexpr of
class with template constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58611
Bug ID: 58611
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with invalid
constexpr constructor used in array initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Is there way how to keep track of the vtables w/o doing the walk based on
fields instead of BINFO_BASEs?
There should be. Your code change makes sense to me; a primary base will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58612
Bug ID: 58612
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE calling non-constexpr
from constexpr in template class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58613
Bug ID: 58613
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++1y] ICE with invalid lambda
capture
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58614
Bug ID: 58614
Summary: [c++11] ICE with undeclared variable in initializer
list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 3 22:50:59 2013
New Revision: 203193
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203193root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-04 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30889|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58601
Bug 58601 depends on bug 58584, which changed state.
Bug 58584 Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid argument for alignas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58606
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54682
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A related case from CSiBE, linux-2.4.23-pre3-testplatform/net/ipv4/igmp.c,
function _add_grhead:
.L275:
mov #0,r0
mov.b r11,@r8
mov.b r0,@(1,r8)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58615
Bug ID: 58615
Summary: [SH] Optimize simple function returns
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 3 23:48:18 2013
New Revision: 203194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203194root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-04 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58599
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Marek, can you please double check the revision number? r180707 first blush
seems unlikely to have caused the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
Bug 58483 depends on bug 19476, which changed state.
Bug 19476 Summary: Missed null checking elimination with new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24242
Bug 24242 depends on bug 19476, which changed state.
Bug 19476 Summary: Missed null checking elimination with new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58600
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Not sure if we want to do much better than below: it's suboptimal from many
points of view, but simply rejecting the alignas with the right location for
the error message (cmp,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58597
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Now, Marek, since this is known to fail even with 4.5.0 (with -std=c++0x of
course) there is definitely something wrong with your pointing to r180707.
I wonder if the fact that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
It does not fix the problem, unfortunately. This is what happens:
Ah, right. We don't have an A binfo in C's base list.
I believe you can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58464
GGanesh Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian at amd dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58503
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #3)
ARM can benefit from doloop structure too, but it is implemented in
different way. ARM backend defines special addsi_compare pattern and let
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58602
Bug ID: 58602
Summary: .gcno files not truncated at gcov_close
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58599
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58600
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58597
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Started with r180707.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58597
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #15)
There must be another scenario for the example, and in this case example:
int test_0 (char* p, int c)
{
int r = 0;
r += *p++;
r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58460
mshawcroft at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mshawcroft at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58596
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
Hi,
I am contacting you because i saw your responses related to some query that I
am interested in. I hope you can help me out here.
While executing shell script (*.sh) I am seeing some warnings. It is not
letting my program run. Is this because of file mismatch or due to cup/copy of
files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58603
Bug ID: 58603
Summary: [4.9 Regression] hash-table.h:962: error:
anachronistic old-style base class initia
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58545
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58603
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That error suggests that either slot_ or limit_ is defined as a macro somewhere
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58545
--- Comment #4 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30951
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30951action=edit
patch currently under test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is the code I am playing with:
/* Walk bases. */
for (i = 0; BINFO_BASE_ITERATE (binfo, i, base_binfo); i++)
/* Walking bases that have no virtual method is pointless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 3 16:13:54 2013
New Revision: 203163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203163root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-03 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58510
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Oct 3 16:33:23 2013
New Revision: 203165
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203165root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/58510
cp/
* init.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58510
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58603
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/3/2013 12:39 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
Attached trans.ii.gz file.
Sorry, .ii is too big to upload.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58603
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30952
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30952action=edit
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58604
Bug ID: 58604
Summary: Text truncation in comments of
/usr/include/c++/4.7/vector
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58604
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58604
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It happened with the merge of the profile mode branch, in r152431
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58603
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
/usr/include/sys/sysmacros.h:#define m_slot(x) (int)((unsigned)(x)160xf)
Header is included.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911
--- Comment #11 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: eraman
Date: Thu Oct 3 17:39:35 2013
New Revision: 203174
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203174root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-03 Easwaran Raman era...@google.com
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47857
Joao Matos ripzonetriton at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ripzonetriton
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58605
Bug ID: 58605
Summary: atomicT::atomic() disobeys
[atomics.types.operations.req]p4 for types with
user-defined default constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
61 matches
Mail list logo
