--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-06 22:59
---
We set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX when testing in-tree GCC because we want the GCC we're
testing to search the right paths.
Note that in creating site.exp, we do:
@echo "set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX \&quo
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-23 01:29
---
I agree on both points: (1) I should not have marked this P5, and (2) we do not
yet have a test case. Marked as "WAITING".
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #52 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-02 14:16
---
Yes, the "perfect pass" problem is what concerns me too. For example, if we
try to do dynamic reordering of passes, or allow users to specify that, we have
to worry that, in practice, the compiler wil
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35639
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-28 04:40
---
Manuel --
Would you please open a new bug for the diagnostic.c issue and close this one
now that the library problem has been resolved?
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35637
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35985
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36060
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35987
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36013
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35813
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-28 04:37
---
I don't see that this is a bug, given that the compiler's optimization is
within the bounds set by the C standard. I agree with Kaveh's comment that it
is desirable that C libraries be able to imp
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36023
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35986
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35659
--- Comment #1 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-28 04:28
---
Fortran is not a primary language.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35399
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-28 04:27
---
Not a primary platform.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-21 17:19
---
Greg --
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to comment on this issue. I've been traveling
for most of the time since you reported this issue.
The change in driver behavior is intentional. Using th
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 17:06
---
We need to be careful about this. We have a lot of ways to specify visibility:
dllimport/dllexport attributes, notshared attribute, visibility attributes on
classes.
I actually think the compiler is behaving as
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 04:37
---
Can this issue now be closed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35088
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 02:59
---
This patch is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34050
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 06:59
---
It's true that having the new target not work well is embarrassing, but it's
not a regression of any kind. However, if we don't fix this, then we certainly
shouldn't brag about support for thi
--- Comment #17 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 05:22
---
I would suggest inserting the conversion right before the call to
build_target_expr_with_type in convert_like_real:
if ((lvalue & clk_packed)
&& CLASS_
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 20:40
---
I agree that this is P1..
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-28 18:12
---
In your patch, why does install-info still need doc and installdirs
dependencies when BUILD_INFO is not set? If those things still need to happen,
shouldn't they be dependencies of some other target? Logi
--- Comment #17 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 18:54
---
This patch is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27516
--- Comment #33 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 05:35
---
This patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg00862.html
is OK. This patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg00951.html
is OK if no objections from a Java maintainer within 24 hours
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 02:03
---
I agree that this should be a P2. I had misunderstood Andrew's earlier comment
to mean that we always got a valid error message before the ICE.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #19 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 02:00
---
Lawrence, thanks for looking into this.
Was there any consensus on whether or not these are static_casts in this
context?
I'm guessing that the eventual resolution is going to be something like saying
t
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 20:13
---
This is a known bug in the Itanium C++ ABI. ARM noticed this; there variant of
the C++ ABI has the additional is_reference parameter precisely to correctly
handle this case.
I looked at this in some detail at
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33810
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-11 21:23
---
I do think this is a bug. It's certainly not going to meet user expectations.
I think this is another case of a GCC extension that could have been
better-designed. If we were starting from scratch, I
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 18:13
---
I still agree that we should fix this -- but it is worth noting that
value-initialization did not exist in C++98. I believe that the current G++
behavior conforms to the original C++98 specification.
Does anyone
--- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-06 19:35
---
I'm not keen on silently changing dynamic_cast to static_cast. But, with
-fno-rtti, making dynamic_cast and static casts work seems OK. Does
that not work now?
And, certainly, adding preprocessor m
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-03 17:02
---
A user that has turned on C++0x will of course not see the message that ISO C++
doesn't allow variadic templates. Our NEWS file is going to say that we have a
great new feature: variadic templates. Given
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33699
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 23:20
---
This code isn't valid. We probably shouldn't allow declarations of
__builtin_va_start, and we certainly shouldn't allow declarations that don't
match the internal definition -- and I don'
--- Comment #37 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 23:17
---
Downgrading to P4. We seem to have consensus that this is now a GCC wrong-code
bug. I can't tell if we think this is an optimization bug or not; if we do
think so, please bump this back to P3, with a test
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 23:14
---
Put into WAITING state until the information requested in Comment #2 is
available.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #44 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 23:12
---
I've marked this as P2 because it seems to depend on the less-used SJLJ EH
method, and, as I understand it, in Ada. (The comments above suggest that the
C testcase is not actually so proble
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 23:06
---
Alpha is not a primary or secondary platform.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33890
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 23:00
---
Dorit, given your patch, can this be closed out?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 22:59
---
P2, until we know if this is actually wrong code.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 22:50
---
adding a comment to test
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34458
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34055
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34055
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34448
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34635
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34635
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34573
--- Comment #17 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-02 17:29
---
I would expect pt.c to call grok_array_decl (which is the same function called
by the parser), not build_x_binary_op.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34457
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-18 05:38
---
Lawrence, was there any feedback on the core reflector about this issue?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-18 05:36
---
We need input from a libstdc++ maintainer. Gaby was invited to comment, but
there's no comment from him in this PR. Paolo, do you have any further
thoughts?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #20 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-18 05:34
---
I think Comment #17 still applies. This is indeed an accepts-invalid
regression, but it has no easy fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26266
--- Comment #39 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-17 02:07
---
Downgraded to P4 based on Comment #34.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-16 21:11
---
I disagree with Andrew's Comment #4. Once we implement a feature in the
compiler, users should reasonably expect it to be correct. We cannot
simultaneously say "Look, we have exciting new C++0x feat
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34435
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34399
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34357
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34314
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34274
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34269
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34094
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33959
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33916
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33887
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33819
--- Comment #19 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 16:06
---
I agree. Given that the intent with MinGW is to avoid fixincludes, I guess
it's up to MinGW to provide headers that work. So, I agree that once we
document this in our release notes, we should close thi
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-02 21:25
---
I disagree.
If we bring out a new feature in the compiler, then that new feature should be
robust. We do not want to tell users that one of the great new things about
GCC 4.3 is C++ 200x support, only to have
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-02 21:12
---
What happens in C++0x mode? The error about variadic templates not being part
of ISO C++ would presumably not occur in that mode.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34051
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34050
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34171
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34059
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 22:22
---
FRV is not a primary or secondary platform. Is there a test-case for this on
another platform?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34244
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34206
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 22:15
---
My mistake. I moved too quickly, and thought this was ICE-on-invalid without a
previous valid error. P4.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 22:09
---
P5 until/unless a non-Ada testcase is found.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34101
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34222
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34178
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 22:02
---
Marking P2, not P1, because there is an easy work-around and this is not the
recommended way of building GCC.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34140
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34138
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34123
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 21:59
---
Jason, would you please take a look at this issue?
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34103
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34102
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34093
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34091
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34069
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34061
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34052
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34051
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34050
201 - 300 of 4516 matches
Mail list logo
