http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #12 from Paul Koning pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12
14:04:30 UTC ---
You said GCC treats types compatible when they have the same precision.
That's where the problem lies, because enums with -fstrict-enums have their
precision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-12 14:15:56 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #12 from Paul Koning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-12 14:21:48 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12
15:13:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 15:12:58 2011
New Revision: 179856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179856
Log:
2011-10-12 Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12
15:16:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 15:16:14 2011
New Revision: 179857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179857
Log:
2011-10-12 Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-11
09:05:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I saw the note that PR/49911 is fixed and thought that might mean this one is
fixed also. Unfortunately testing shows that is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-11
09:09:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Re comment 5, does works by luck mean that I should not look in trunk for a
fix to backport because nothing was actually fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #10 from Paul Koning pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-11
19:03:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 25467
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25467
Tentative patch against 4.6.1
I chased the issue for a while, using 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #7 from Paul Koning pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-10
20:41:35 UTC ---
Re comment 5, does works by luck mean that I should not look in trunk for a
fix to backport because nothing was actually fixed?
Should I just avoid all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #6 from Paul Koning pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-09
19:11:01 UTC ---
I saw the note that PR/49911 is fixed and thought that might mean this one is
fixed also. Unfortunately testing shows that is not the case, at least not in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.6.1 |4.7.0
12 matches
Mail list logo
