[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Tue Sep 9 11:57:25 2014 New Revision: 215061 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215061root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/61214 PR c++/62224 gcc/ *

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-09 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-09 Thread chris2553 at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton chris2553 at googlemail dot com --- I can confirm that with Jason's code changes (referenced in comment 15) to gcc/cp/decl2.c and gcc/gimple-fold.c, the resultant compiler successfully builds qt-creator-3.2.0.

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-03 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-03 Thread chris2553 at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton chris2553 at googlemail dot com --- Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means. I think you are saying that prior to r214208, the symbols definedMacros() and headerPaths() were

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-03 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #12) Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means. I think you are saying that prior to r214208,

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-03 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13) (In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #12) Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-02 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- I don't see cppmodelmanager in that link command, so I'm guessing ensureUpdated is hidden in a different .so? Certainly compiling the preprocessed file you attached provides a

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-02 Thread chris2553 at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton chris2553 at googlemail dot com --- Created attachment 33439 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33439action=edit Pre-processed cppcodemodelinspectordialog cppcodemodelinspectordialog.ii

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-02 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- I don't think this is a compiler bug. cppmodelmanager.o is simply missing in the object file list of the libCppEditor.so link command. And the undefined symbol from

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-02 Thread chris2553 at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #9 from Chris Clayton chris2553 at googlemail dot com --- That seems odd to me, although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong. I base this on the fact that reverting the code change from r214208 permits a successful build. MoreOver, in both

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-02 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #9) That seems odd to me, although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong. I base this on the fact that reverting the code change from

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-09-01 Thread chris2553 at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #5 from Chris Clayton chris2553 at googlemail dot com --- I reverted the code change from r214208 with the following patch: --- gcc-4.9-20140827-orig/gcc/cp/decl2.c2014-08-20 02:54:40.0 +0100 +++

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-08-28 Thread chris2553 at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 --- Comment #3 from Chris Clayton chris2553 at googlemail dot com --- Yes, the preprocessed file is the one providing the unresolved references. It surely won't be a surprise to anyone to here that the same failure occurs when building with

[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

2014-08-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target