http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to bredelin from comment #10)
Was this change intentional?
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg01101.html
and Paolo's reply.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to bredelin from comment #10)
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2193
I suggest you open a separate bugzilla PR for this. Before my patch we were
already
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58710
--- Comment #1 from Misty De Meo misty at brew dot sh ---
It looks like the check was added in a4a5a77adfc9c28d6963e5ae054c997d57cfc7fa
(http://repo.or.cz/w/official-gcc.git/commitdiff/a4a5a77adfc9c28d6963e5ae054c997d57cfc7fa),
which didn't touch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
congh at google dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
--- Comment #2 from Cong Hou congh at google dot com ---
I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58709
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
The warning is target independent and only depends on the type. You get the
same warning for int vs long even if they are the same size.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
In any case I see that the issue with explicit instantiation is recorded in
2193. Let's see what happens in EWG.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
Bug ID: 58712
Summary: [4.9 Regression] issues found by
--enable-checking=valgrind
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
Bug ID: 58713
Summary: error: cannot bind ‘std::ostream {aka
std::basic_ostreamchar}’ lvalue to
‘std::basic_ostreamchar’
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58711
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Bug ID: 58714
Summary: Bogus value category in ternary operator?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58691
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
--- Comment #2 from Ali Baharev ali.baharev at gmail dot com ---
OK, sorry for the dupe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Oct 13 13:29:28 2013
New Revision: 203498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203498root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/58662
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
Joshua Cogliati jjcogliati-r1 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30979|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58709
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
Bug ID: 58715
Summary: Missed loop condition optimization opportunity
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58716
Bug ID: 58716
Summary: [PATCH] MSP430X check is inverted
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a testcase which shows we are not doing some other loop opt due to not
changing the loop:
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
void f(int mlen, unsigned char *dst, size_t d_len,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #1 from Hristo Venev mustrumr97 at gmail dot com ---
Obviously bugzilla doesn't like unicode.
U\x1\x10001\x10002
current: const char32_t, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, 0x02,
0x00, 0x01, 0x00
expected: char32_t,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Hristo,
Thanks for finishing your thought.
So if i have:
templatetypename CharT, CharT... str
void
operator_foo
{
ChatT arr[]{str...};
}
U\x1\x10001\x10002_foo;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Bug ID: 58717
Summary: Pre-calculation optimization is omitted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
--- Comment #1 from masoud_mxm at yahoo dot com ---
Comment on attachment 30997
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30997
Two .cpp source code
Tests are made in MinGW/32bit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Ali Baharev ali.baharev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ali.baharev at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #2 from Ali Baharev ali.baharev at gmail dot com ---
Why do the 32 and 64 bit versions behave differently?
They don't. I think maybe you forgot to use -std=c++11 in the first case?
Yes, that's what happened. Sorry, my mistake.
31 matches
Mail list logo