http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to François Dumont from comment #4)
I simply considered that the moved container instance wouldn't be reused
this way, just potentially for some immutable operations. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
... of course I meant that dependent_type_p returns true for enum E therein.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There was that whole discussion on how much sense it makes to make move
constructors noexcept when default constructors aren't...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
Bug ID: 61152
Summary: Missing GCC Runtime Library Exception in some files
that are included in libgcc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61058
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=60617
--- Comment #3 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com ---
The bug is now hidden in trunk by revision 209897
The patch Remove PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED from the RTL expander
(reference below) seems to change the way arguments are handled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61058
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On the other side, pass_cleanup_barriers is performed after pass_free_cfg, so
making it unconditionally cfg-aware is not going to work, it is just that i386
(as well as few other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60617
--- Comment #4 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com ---
Reverting this patch in 209897 bug still occurs in trunk with -mno-lra.
SPILL failure occurs for regno 110 (dst operand) in below instruction
(insn 634 633 635 27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61141
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the Linux case, we also have a note in a NOTE_INSN_DELETED delayed
branch sequence:
(gdb) ignor 1 9396470
Will ignore next 9396470 crossings of breakpoint 1.
(gdb) r
Starting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61141
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(gdb) p *pass
$4 = {pass_data = {type = RTL_PASS, name = 0x1afa7c0 final,
optinfo_flags = 0, has_execute = true, tv_id = TV_FINAL,
properties_required = 0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
--- Comment #3 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Sorry I no longer have the elf file available.
I've just looked at the current trunk status and I have a failure at link time
for these tests:
ld: gcc_tg.o: relocation R_ARM_MOVW_ABS_NC against
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61141
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(gdb) p *fn
$5 = {eh = 0xfa483f48, cfg = 0xf7f60a10, gimple_body = 0x0,
gimple_df = 0xf7ba6900, x_current_loops = 0x0, su = 0x0,
value_histograms = 0x0, decl = 0xf8f39100,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Bug ID: 61153
Summary: [ARM] vbic vorn tests fail
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #8 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
Further investigation suggests that the real gcc 4.8.2 is not affected; I was
mislead by the fact that Debian is shipping as gcc-4.8_4.8.2-21 an svn
snapshot that's actually post-4.8.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
Bug ID: 61154
Summary: [ARM] wide-int merge introduced regressions in vshuf
tests
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #2 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
OK, but my tests currently don't inspect the generated code.
They are execution tests, which means the could be PASS using only core
instructions, and no Neon one.
So maybe we should add some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So maybe we should add some optimization level to the existing tests in the
meantime?
Transforming them into something like
#include arm_neon.h
volatile int16x8_t arg0_int16x8_t;
volatile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Do we plan to keep these scan-assembler tests? or go with just functional
tests?
No, not these scan assembler tests. They serve no purpose.
I'm expecting them to get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #6 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
Yes that is expected as per my original patch submission. Patch 1/3 said
these tests would fail because at O0 combine doesn't run.
Indeed,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #7 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5)
Do we plan to keep these scan-assembler tests? or go with just functional
tests?
No, not these scan assembler tests. They serve no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #8 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com ramana.radhakrishnan
at arm dot com ---
How do we define cases where we need them? My concern is that some compiler
change might cause a suboptimal-yet-functional code to be generated,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #9 from Jody Lee Bruchon jody at jodybruchon dot com ---
For my gcc versions (x86_64) compiled from release sources, I have the
following for this testcase, with and without static, using -O2:
=== gcc 4.8.2, with and without static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61155
Bug ID: 61155
Summary: vshuf-v16hi failures for arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
since the wide-int merge.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61155
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These also look related to the same
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v32qi.c -O2 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v32qi.c -O2 (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61155
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60209
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32779
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32779action=edit
Just parse a whole string instread of consuming one token.
This builds and tests clean on x86_64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60209
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #10 from James Cloos cloos at jhcloos dot com ---
My tests on debian sid with GCC: (Debian 4.8.2-21) 4.8.2 do not replicate the
bug.
On debian sid, only 4.9 and gcc-snapshot (the 4.10 branch) show the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54108
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32781
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32781action=edit
g++ -E pr61038.C pr61038_cxx98.ii
Get preprocessed output in C++98 mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32782
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32782action=edit
g++ -std=c++11 -E pr61038.C pr61038_cxx11.ii
Get preprocessed output in C++11 mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61147
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=6273
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59537
--- Comment #6 from Lorenz Hüdepohl bugs at stellardeath dot org ---
Nonetheless, code that compiles without -finit-real should also compile
with -finit-real, right?
I disagree: C506 states that automatic object cannot be initialized. What is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
Bug ID: 61156
Summary: Internal compiler error for Fortran files when
specifying a file instead of an include directory with
-I
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
--- Comment #6 from D. Hugh Redelmeier hugh at mimosa dot com ---
Responding to Comment 5 by Manuel López-Ibáñez:
Thanks for looking at this.
Could you produce a complete testcase
===
/* compile with -c -Wformat -Werror=format-nonliteral */
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #11 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
Adding __attribute__((__used__)) to the static object suppresses the symptom in
case that helps to isolate what's causing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
--- Comment #4 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: denisc
Date: Mon May 12 15:33:00 2014
New Revision: 210325
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210325root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/60991
* config/avr/avr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to D. Hugh Redelmeier from comment #6)
The best would be to include only the definitions of the types that you
need and declare as 'extern' library functions that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #5 from Matthijs Kooijman matthijs at stdin dot nl ---
Ah, then the comments are a bit misleading, yes. Wouldn't it make sense to put
this decision outside of avr_sp_immediate_operand, in the same area where the
decision between the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to D. Hugh Redelmeier from comment #6)
If you can produce another similar example that works with printf, that
would also help.
I don't think that printf is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
--- Comment #5 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: denisc
Date: Mon May 12 15:57:52 2014
New Revision: 210327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210327root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-12 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
This code is doing an OImode ASHIFT and fails the check:
#if TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT == 0
/* This assert keeps the simplification from producing a result
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
--- Comment #6 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: denisc
Date: Mon May 12 16:07:44 2014
New Revision: 210328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210328root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-12 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60834
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 12 16:17:09 2014
New Revision: 210329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210329root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-12 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #17 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
patch posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00785.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61131
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Stephen Warren from comment #3)
Or is the definition of
undefined such that it propagates through the entire expression irrespective
of the expression's logic?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #12 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
Furthermore, __builtin_constant_p(dummy) wrongly returns 1, even though dummy
is modifiable externally via foo (assuming foo is not replaced by a strong
definition elsewhere). Perhaps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61157
Bug ID: 61157
Summary: [SH] Implement TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I'm pretty sure I have my arms around this one.
Two questions:
1. Any ideas on how to make testsuite cases? Any examples of looking at
preprocessed files in the testsuite?
2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61158
Bug ID: 61158
Summary: negative shift at fold-const.c:12095
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61159
Bug ID: 61159
Summary: __builtin_constant_p gives incorrect results with
aliases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60588
Charles Lohr charles at cnlohr dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charles at cnlohr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Please send your patches, questions, etc, about this and the other bug to the
mailing list, with Jason in CC, otherwise we seriously risk unnecessarily
delaying the resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60127
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon May 12 19:00:08 2014
New Revision: 210331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210331root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-12 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #13 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
I've added the related issue 61159.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60127
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61035
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon May 12 19:23:11 2014
New Revision: 210335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210335root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix stack overflow crash in getcwd intrinsic.
2014-05-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
--- Comment #9 from D. Hugh Redelmeier hugh at mimosa dot com ---
Created attachment 32784
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32784action=edit
minimal C source code that demonstrates the problem
minimal C source code that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61159
--- Comment #1 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
I should amend this report with further info: __builtin_constant_p is giving
different results for dummy and foo depending on whether it's used at file
scope or in a function. I've also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
Bug ID: 61160
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O3 (or ICE:
verify_cgraph_node failed: edge points to wrong
declaration)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz ---
Created attachment 32786
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32786action=edit
testcase causing ICE
Slightly modified, struct A replaced by void *.
Compiler output:
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This seems related to PR 59948 where Honza says the code is really broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61161
Bug ID: 61161
Summary: wrong two-stage name lookup for overloaded operators
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Note to self: you DO need to take care of char...
void
operator _t(const char)
{
}
#define QUOTE(s) #s
int
main()
{
QUOTE(''_t);
QUOTE('\''_t);
QUOTE('\\'_t);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31778
--- Comment #4 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon May 12 21:22:20 2014
New Revision: 210340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210340root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR other/31778
* genattrtab.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31778
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #8 from Ben Longbons b.r.longbons at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Ed Smith-Rowland from comment #7)
Note to self: you DO need to take care of char...
What about multi-char constants, or are they not permitted in C++ UDLs?
Normally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Ben Longbons from comment #8)
What about multi-char constants, or are they not permitted in C++ UDLs?
Normally they get converted to int, so they're not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61161
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe related to PR51577
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60373
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon May 12 23:08:22 2014
New Revision: 210344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210344root=gccview=rev
Log:
Reapply the old IBM 4.8 branch patches that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60672
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon May 12 23:08:22 2014
New Revision: 210344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210344root=gccview=rev
Log:
Reapply the old IBM 4.8 branch patches that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54537
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon May 12 23:08:22 2014
New Revision: 210344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210344root=gccview=rev
Log:
Reapply the old IBM 4.8 branch patches that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32783|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Richard Smith richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61161
Richard Smith richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12944
Bug 12944 depends on bug 61161, which changed state.
Bug 61161 Summary: wrong two-stage name lookup for overloaded operators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61161
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10437
Richard Smith richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #15 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
Can you clarify? As far as I can tell, the other bug is a missed optimization
and this is an overly-aggressive, incorrect optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
Bug ID: 61162
Summary: possibly bad error location with -Wc++-compat
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61163
Bug ID: 61163
Summary: Placement arguments shared between allocation and
deallocation even when copies prohibited
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
Bug ID: 61164
Summary: GCC 4.9.0 fails to build libitm with fortification
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that it is also wrong for a conversion diagnosed
in a return:
enum e { ZERO = 0, ONE };
enum e f(void)
{
return 0;
}
barimba. gcc --syntax-only -Wc++-compat r.c
r.c: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61162
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I posted a patch, but the location for a return stmt will need more surgery
than that.
96 matches
Mail list logo
