--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-08 07:45
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So think of it this way: if we adopted COMPOUND_LITERAL_EXPR like
you're inclined to do, we'd
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-06 18:02
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
+case TARGET_EXPR:
+ {
+ tree r = tsubst_copy (t, args, complain, in_decl
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-07 04:19
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/19199] don't turn cond_expr lvalue into min_expr rvalue
(continued from PR c++/20280)
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 5, 2005, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roger has
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-07 04:44
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This doesn't look quite right. First, we're trying to get rid of
tsubst_copy; we should not add new
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-05 21:47
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Testing now. I was a bit surprised that the casts to (const B)
weren't reported as faulty
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-06 00:14
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/19199] don't turn cond_expr lvalue into min_expr rvalue
(continued from PR c++/20280)
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Here's a patch that fixes PR c++/19199, by avoiding
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-04 23:29
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this is the wrong approach
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-03 18:47
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result
in bad asm
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
2. The tree-inliner inlines the call. Since the same tree is referenced twice
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-03 19:34
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result
in bad asm
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03
19:25
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-03 21:19
---
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result
in bad asm
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03
21:12
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-04 01:36
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20280] hoist indirect_ref out of addressable cond_exprs
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
\
I went ahead and verified that I didn't break bit-field lvalues in
conditional expressions (my first
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-04 07:26
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20280] hoist indirect_ref out of addressable cond_exprs
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
+ // Hmm... I don't think these should be accepted. The conditional
+ // expressions are lvalues
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-10 22:06
---
Subject: Re: Invalid destructor declaration in template class
accepted
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10
21:28
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-03 00:02
---
Subject: Re: gcc -v should include target information
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02
23:54 ---
Patch here: http
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-22 19:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] missing ra.h
joel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
12:57 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Mark
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-22 19:44
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE during bootstrap compiling
__fixdfdi
joel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
13:02
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-19 22:44
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] Incorrect bytecode produced
for bitwise AND
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
19:24
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-07 08:17
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Undefined symbol: vtable for
__cxxabiv1::__vmi_class_type_info
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-29 20:40
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] warning value computed is not
used emitted too often
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-29
18:00
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-24 20:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Is there any reason that's not a bad idea?
s|bad|good
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-15 23:30
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] -static-libgcc links
in libunwind.so.7
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-12-15 22:54
---
We tried very hard
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-08 03:46
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] mmintrin.h rejected by C++ frontend
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
17:29 ---
Mark
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-08 05:48
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 regression] template member with same
name as class not rejected
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-03 17:31
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Undocumented target
macros in 3.0
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
CRT_GET_RFIB_DATA
EXPAND_BUILTIN_VA_START
IDENT_ASM_OP
Just to get it over with, I'll see
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-01 15:08
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 regression] Internal error: Segmentation
fault (program cc1plus)
cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-01 18:59
---
Subject: Re: C++ ABI bug on OS X with doubles
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-01
18:56 ---
The problem has nothing
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-01 19:13
---
Subject: Re: C++ ABI bug on OS X with emebed types
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-01
19:08 ---
oh, yes now I see
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-24 17:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] array bound rejected as non-constant
in template
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-24
10:05
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-24 20:11
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] ICE on invalid template member
declaration
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
20:07
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-25 02:45
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 regression] ICE when returning undefined
type
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-25
02:42
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-19 22:54
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] C++ debug is broken
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-19 22:50
---
Does this patch
--- toplev.c.bar
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-18 07:59
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE on zero-length array
with empty initializer...
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-18
01
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-02 23:18 ---
Subject: Re: PR c/17384 patch causes regression from 3.4.2
Jakub --
Since Richard says this is not a regression, but rather a case where the
compiler is now correctly diagnosing code that previously did
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-10-22 16:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] mmintrin.h rejected by C++ frontend
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-22 08:00
---
Fixed
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-10-16 03:37 ---
Subject: Re: __alignof__ vs. typedefs
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 02:00
---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-10-16 03:38 ---
Subject: Re: __alignof__(double) not compile time constant
inside template class
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 02:01
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-10-11 15:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regresssion] ICE with qualified name in
template specialization
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 14:58
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-10-05 21:42 ---
Subject: Re: New: Segfault in perform_or_defer_access_check
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
extern C long foo (int);
struct A
{
int i;
};
struct B
{
static void foo (A );
B (int x) : c (x) { foo
301 - 338 of 338 matches
Mail list logo
