http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #4 from Chris Johns chris at contemporary dot net.au 2013-04-02
06:23:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 29771
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29771
xgcc dumps from a cygwin build that also fails.
The file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #5 from Chris Johns chris at contemporary dot net.au 2013-04-02
06:28:32 UTC ---
A cygwin cross-compile also fails as it is a 32bit host. The failure is not
specific to Linux.
This means RTEMS users have problems building
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56806
Bug #: 56806
Summary: make: *** [spher_harm.o] Error 1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56806
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Bug #: 56807
Summary: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack
probe destroys function argument in EAX
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Church achurch+gcc at achurch dot org 2013-04-02
07:47:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 29773
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29773
testcase-1.c
This file contains the bulk of the testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Church achurch+gcc at achurch dot org 2013-04-02
07:48:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 29774
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29774
testcase-2.c
Contains the definition of foo().
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50269
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Church achurch+gcc at achurch dot org 2013-04-02
07:53:08 UTC ---
The __chkstk_ms call comes from allocate_stack_worker_probe_mode in i386.md,
which is used in allocate_stack if the CHECK_STACK_LIMIT symbol is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-02 07:56:26 UTC ---
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56808
Bug #: 56808
Summary: Coarray: Wrongly accepts coindexed arguments to
INTENT(OUT) dummies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
Bug #: 56809
Summary: Revision 197266 causes trunk ICE for arm-none-eabi
targets
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.4 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56808
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
08:08:34 UTC ---
Btw, vec_merge is a special-case of a non-existing vec_shuffle2.
vec_merge (and a vec_suffle2) as opposed to a vec_select (vec_concat (...))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
--- Comment #1 from Terry Guo terry.guo at arm dot com 2013-04-02 08:12:32
UTC ---
The latest trunk code still has this issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
08:27:51 UTC ---
The patch looks fine to me, though it might be a bit expensive. I'd
re-organize it like
if (TREE_INT_CST_LOW (arg1) % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
08:30:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
What Ada does looks just like a workaround for what should be done properly
in
the expander. So no, IMHO we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
08:30:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
I believe the discussion here is missing the point. Currently (at least with
version 4.5 and ARM, which I am currently
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28315
Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
08:58:24 UTC ---
*** Bug 56769 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56769
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56775
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56786
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56790
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56791
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56795
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02 09:43:57 UTC ---
Similar problem on aarch64-none-elf. The testcase produces this ICE with
aarch64-none-elf-gcc ice.c -S
ice.c:28:1: internal compiler error: in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
--- Comment #4 from Vincent vchou79 at gmail dot com 2013-04-02 09:45:29 UTC
---
After rebuild all LTO objects the same happened.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56810
Bug #: 56810
Summary: record-repeat fails kind check on complex read
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #6 from Chris Johns chris at contemporary dot net.au 2013-04-02
11:04:29 UTC ---
It looks to me like libcpp/configure.ac is not setting 'need_64bit_hwint' to
'yes'. It looks like the RTEMS ptch to change arm-rtems*eabi to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi, |arm-none-eabi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Bug #: 56811
Summary: gcc build fails: Unsatisfied symbol
_Unwind_GetIPInfo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
11:19:35 UTC ---
The issue is that gimple_seq_add_seq updates stmts added. But we update SSA
form _before_ adding the sequence into the IL stream:
/* End
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
Bug #: 56812
Summary: Simple loop is not SLP-vectorized after r196872
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com 2013-04-02
11:22:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 29775
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29775
testcase
Need to compile with -O3 -funroll-loops options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
11:27:09 UTC ---
I have a fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com 2013-04-02
11:41:23 UTC ---
Sorry, i did a typo in -march option - it must be -march=corei7 -mavx.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02 12:11:12
UTC ---
See the discussion at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00692.html
which continues at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56799
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
--- Comment #4 from peter.hans.froehlich at gmail dot com 2013-04-02 13:10:22
UTC ---
I am fine with your decision to declare this INVALID, I'd just like to
understand the reasoning. You're saying that it's okay for code injected by gcc
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56810
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
13:25:12 UTC ---
Works for me. Are you sure -lvpx doesn't contain LTO bytecode? Can you
reproduce it with -r -nostdlib? Please provide the output of appending
-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com 2013-04-02
13:27:15 UTC ---
Yes, the test-case is correct. If we delete your changes we got thee following
(with -ftree-vectorizer-verbose-3):
t.cc:12: note: vectorizing stmts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50269
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
13:28:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
Are we sure? When running the code example given in comment #1, I get a
segfault.
Yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
14:06:12 UTC ---
The BB vectorization case ran into
/* When vectorizing a basic block unknown depnedence can still mean
grouped access. */
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02 14:08:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I'd re-organize it like
Ok, I'll try something like that.
it avoids building a tree just to feed it into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-02 14:21:56 UTC ---
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #4 from Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02 14:36:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
No, get_addr_base_and_unit_offset_1 only is supposed to return the
addressable offset into an object - it doesn't care about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56813
Bug #: 56813
Summary: [4.9 regression] invalid assembly code for
libiberty/cp-demangle.c on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56737
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
15:43:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:42:31 2013
New Revision: 197359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197359root=gccview=rev
Log:
libgfortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814
Bug #: 56814
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus Interface mismatch in dummy
procedure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
16:31:25 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 2 16:30:26 2013
New Revision: 197361
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197361root=gccview=rev
Log:
libgfortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50789
vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Bug #: 56815
Summary: void pointer arithmetic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #1 from __vic d.v.a at ngs dot ru 2013-04-02 17:00:23 UTC ---
Slightly modified:
int main()
{
void *p = 0;
p++;
}
$ gcc -std=c++98 source.cpp
source.cpp:4:6: error: arithmetic on a pointer to void
p++;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
17:04:31 UTC ---
Use -pedantic-errors if you want to have rejected invalid standard C++ code.
void* arithmetic is a GCC extension.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #3 from __vic d.v.a at ngs dot ru 2013-04-02 17:10:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
void* arithmetic is a GCC extension.
But why my examples are treated differently?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
17:25:18 UTC ---
The check is in interface.c's check_result_characteristics:
/* Check PROCEDURE POINTER attribute. */
if (r1 != s1 r1-attr.proc_pointer !=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Bug #: 56816
Summary: f951.exe internal compiler error. segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Dominique Pelletier dominique.pelletier at polymtl dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
--- Comment #3 from Jan Smets jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com 2013-04-02
18:11:41 UTC ---
For me it's very important. To briefly describe what we do: we have structures
that are sent to different platforms with configuration information for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56817
Bug #: 56817
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in
hide_evolution_in_other_loops_than_loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
Bug #: 56818
Summary: [meta-bug] fortran-dev bugs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Dominique Pelletier dominique.pelletier at polymtl dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29777|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
--- Comment #4 from Dominique Pelletier dominique.pelletier at polymtl dot ca
2013-04-02 19:02:36 UTC ---
DP@P-DP /cygdrive/c/users/dp/Desktop/metcalf
$ gfortran -v -c bug_report.f03
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=C:\Program Files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
Dominique Pelletier dominique.pelletier at polymtl dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
--- Comment #2 from Dominique Pelletier dominique.pelletier at polymtl dot ca
2013-04-02 19:04:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 29779
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29779
modules from metcalf's modern fortran explainde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #18 from incrediball peter at axium dot co.nz 2013-04-02 20:21:06
UTC ---
Not sure if I can agree with (or understand) this comment. If we use my example
of the address of an int in a packed structure being assigned to an int*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
--- Comment #4 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
20:34:57 UTC ---
In GCC 4.6, type sections were the default for -gdwarf-4, but -gdwarf-2 was
still the default for 4.6, I think. If you explicitly ask for -gdwarf-4,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56819
Bug #: 56819
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in int_cst_value
(tree.h:4013) with -fcompare-debug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56820
Bug #: 56820
Summary: elaborated-type-specifier friend incorrectly looked up
beyond innermost enclosing namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50243
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
21:19:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29782
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29782
possible patch
The patches we checked in today for 34949 almost fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
--- Comment #5 from Jan Smets jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com 2013-04-02
21:28:37 UTC ---
-gstrict-dwarf does not disable type sections in GCC 4.6, the result is
unchanged. With 4.8 the behaviour is what you described.
Is it really that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Bug #: 56821
Summary: Unable to overload with references to 'this'.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
