[Bug c/48088] -Werror=frame-larger-than=100 does not work as expected

2011-03-14 Thread cgd at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48088 --- Comment #3 from Chris Demetriou cgd at google dot com 2011-03-14 22:56:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) Yeah. Confirmed. You need -Wframe-larger-than=500 -Werror=frame-larger-than which hopefully doesn't reset the value to 1

[Bug c++/48078] New: gcc accepts-invalid: taking address of private member function from template function

2011-03-11 Thread cgd at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078 Summary: gcc accepts-invalid: taking address of private member function from template function Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/48078] gcc accepts-invalid: taking address of private member function from template function

2011-03-11 Thread cgd at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48078 --- Comment #3 from Chris Demetriou cgd at google dot com 2011-03-11 19:59:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) I think this is different enough from any of those others to count as a distinct bug - confirmed I hadn't seen them when i filed

[Bug c/48083] New: DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT + -no-integrated-cpp produces bad dependencies

2011-03-11 Thread cgd at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48083 Summary: DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT + -no-integrated-cpp produces bad dependencies Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/48087] New: -Wall -Werror adds warnings over and above those generated by -Wall

2011-03-11 Thread cgd at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087 Summary: -Wall -Werror adds warnings over and above those generated by -Wall Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/48088] New: -Werror=frame-larger-than=100 does not work as expected

2011-03-11 Thread cgd at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48088 Summary: -Werror=frame-larger-than=100 does not work as expected Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug preprocessor/28435] -MMD vs not found system header (included from a system header)

2010-02-07 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #16 from cgd at google dot com 2010-02-07 21:24 --- (In reply to comment #15) *** Bug 42921 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** FWIW, I actually think that's a different issue (though certainly related). this bug was all about -MD and -MMD -- and what

[Bug preprocessor/28435] -MMD vs not found system header (included from a system header)

2009-09-19 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #11 from cgd at google dot com 2009-09-20 01:34 --- Subject: Re: -MMD vs not found system header (included from a system header) Gack, sorry, looks like I screwed this up. When I retested after updating, I only compared test results before/after, and saw what I

[Bug c++/40831] New: g++ generated symbols for cloned function that be demangled.

2009-07-22 Thread cgd at google dot com
at google dot com GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40831

[Bug c++/40831] g++ generated symbols for cloned function that be demangled.

2009-07-22 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from cgd at google dot com 2009-07-22 23:29 --- Created an attachment (id=18239) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18239action=view) example c++ input that shows creation of a cloned function which isn't demangled. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug c++/40831] g++ generated symbols for cloned function that be demangled.

2009-07-22 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #4 from cgd at google dot com 2009-07-22 23:44 --- (In reply to comment #2) I don't see a problem with this really since it is a local symbol and will never be exported so the ABI never gets involved. a demangled name is only a nice way of displaying the name

[Bug c/38661] New: ICE: vector VEC(constructor_elt,base) push domain error, in build_constructors at tree-switch-conversion.c:450

2008-12-29 Thread cgd at google dot com
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: cgd at google dot com GCC build triplet: i686-linux GCC host triplet: i686-linux GCC target triplet: i686-linux http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38661

[Bug c++/38232] [4.4 Regression] value-initialization of reference warning too strict

2008-12-03 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #6 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-04 07:12 --- verified after syncing that my test case is now fixed. (Would close, but not sure why Jason didn't close it... please close if there's nothing else to do, Jason, or tell me to.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug libstdc++/38244] [4.4 Regression] bitset initialization from 0 rejected.

2008-12-01 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #8 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-01 18:30 --- (re: my last comment on 11/24: I see you added the test case in the original commit! Sorry, didn't notice that! Thanks much for resolving the issue.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244

[Bug c++/38232] [4.4 Regression] value-initialization of reference warning too strict

2008-12-01 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #4 from cgd at google dot com 2008-12-01 23:28 --- Decided to try to verify again with current head of trunk compiler (since several other bugs I reported have been fixed, and one was related to value initialization). gcc version 4.4.0 20081201 (experimental) (GCC

[Bug libstdc++/38244] [4.4 Regression] bitset initialization from 0 rejected.

2008-11-24 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #7 from cgd at google dot com 2008-11-24 20:55 --- Would it make sense to add a this test code as a test case? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244

[Bug libstdc++/38233] New: 'map' value type + new uninitted const member warnings causes error

2008-11-23 Thread cgd at google dot com
member warnings causes error Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: cgd at google dot

[Bug libstdc++/38233] 'map' value type + new uninitted const member warnings causes error

2008-11-23 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from cgd at google dot com 2008-11-23 08:48 --- Created an attachment (id=16750) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16750action=view) preprocessed source from test case in bug report. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38233

[Bug libstdc++/38244] New: bitset initialization from 0 rejected.

2008-11-23 Thread cgd at google dot com
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: cgd at google dot com GCC build triplet: i686-linux GCC host triplet: i686-linux GCC target triplet: i686-linux http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244

[Bug libstdc++/38244] bitset initialization from 0 rejected.

2008-11-23 Thread cgd at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from cgd at google dot com 2008-11-24 03:54 --- Created an attachment (id=16754) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16754action=view) preprocessed source from test case in bug report. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38244

[Bug c++/38232] New: value-initialization of reference warning too strict

2008-11-22 Thread cgd at google dot com
ReportedBy: cgd at google dot com GCC build triplet: i686-linux GCC host triplet: i686-linux GCC target triplet: i686-linux http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38232