http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56951
Bug #: 56951
Summary: Poor diagnostics for error: invalid abstract return
type 'XXX'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-14
06:45:18 UTC ---
On MinGW, GCC 4.7.x Ada built successfully with default (no -with-arch or
-with-tune) configure.
GCC 4.8.0 s-atopri.* changes breaks same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mikpe at it dot uu.se |
---
lt_cv_deplibs_check_method=pass_all
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.9.0 20130414 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B' '/tmp/gcc/host-i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/' '-B'
'/usr/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/' '-B' '/usr/i686-pc-cygwin/lib/' '-isystem'
'/usr/i686-pc-cygwin/include' '-isystem' '/usr/i686-pc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56890
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Jung rainer.jung at kippdata dot de 2013-04-14
09:05:54 UTC ---
I can confirm, that the test cases behave unchanged with 4.7.3.
There's no problem with 4.8.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56952
--- Comment #1 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2013-04-14 09:06:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 29870
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29870
preprocessed source
-prototypes
-Wold-style-definition -version -fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -o
gthr-win32.s
[New Thread 12136.0x2900]
[New Thread 12136.0x18d8]
GNU C (GCC) version 4.9.0 20130414 (experimental) (i686-pc-cygwin)
compiled by GNU C version 4.9.0 20130331 (experimental), GMP version
5.0.2, MPFR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56952
gee jojelino at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56944
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-14 10:21:53
UTC ---
Maybe in C terms:
isnan(x) - x!=x
isinf(x) - fabs(x)DBL_MAX
isfinite(x) - fabs(x)=DBL_MAX
what I am suggesting (with -fno-trapping-math, and maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56953
Bug #: 56953
Summary: [4.9]Inheriting constructors triggers instantiation of
parameters at point of declaration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56954
Bug #: 56954
Summary: Bootstrap failure: ./auto-host.h:1994:16: error:
declaration does not declare anything [-fpermissive]
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #16 from André Wöbbeking Woebbeking at web dot de 2013-04-14
14:15:47 UTC ---
Thanks for your fast support!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
--- Comment #9 from devspam at moreofthesa dot me.uk 2013-04-14 15:03:13 UTC ---
Hmm, interesting…
I'm taking your patch (crediting you) and paraphrasing where necessary to make
a reasonable commit message of it. I'll also forward to other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56950
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-14
15:09:20 UTC ---
I am testing this fix:
Index: haifa-sched.c
===
--- haifa-sched.c (revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-04-14
15:55:32 UTC ---
OK, I can confirm that compiling glibc-2.17 with gcc-4.7.3 -O3 -march=bdver1
causes the sha512 test to fail, but without -march=bdver1 it doesn't fail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36150
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
Bug #: 56955
Summary: documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-14
19:05:00 UTC ---
I think it is talking about the memory returned by malloc/calloc will not point
to another memory location while realloc can.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56797
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
Bug #: 56956
Summary: ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56796
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56950
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-14
19:30:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I am testing this fix:
Hmm, no that is not a fix...
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: sch...@linux-m68k.org
CC: ste...@gcc.gnu.org
Target: ia64-*-*
spawn /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20130414/Build/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #2 from Dan Gohman sunfish at google dot com 2013-04-14 19:47:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think it is talking about the memory returned by malloc/calloc will not
point
to another memory location while realloc can.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56958
Bug #: 56958
Summary: Spurious unused variable warning in empty pack
expansion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
--- Comment #11 from Sean Santos quantheory at gmail dot com 2013-04-14
20:08:59 UTC ---
I'm doing a bit of research because I'm considering trying to tackle part of
this soon.
I believe that the Fortran standard does not require the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959
Bug #: 56959
Summary: unable to find string literal operator ‘operator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
Sean Santos quantheory at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
--- Comment #10 from Arthur Zhang mail2arthur at gmail dot com 2013-04-14
22:09:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
On MinGW, GCC 4.7.x Ada built successfully with default (no -with-arch or
-with-tune) configure.
GCC 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-14
22:15:59 UTC ---
Are you using -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11 or -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++-0x ? If
this is the correct behavior as the strCopyRight in this case is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959
--- Comment #3 from claudio daffra daffra.claudio at gmail dot com 2013-04-14
22:43:34 UTC ---
no bug, std=c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-14
22:48:00 UTC ---
Also, the backslashes are a complete waste of time, you can just write:
const char *s = \n
strCopyRight
\n\nUsage :\n
\nstrProjectName : input file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
--- Comment #11 from Arthur Zhang mail2arthur at gmail dot com 2013-04-14
23:12:48 UTC ---
Will '--exec-prefix=mingw32' work?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56916
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56921
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
Chung-Ju Wu jasonwucj at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
--- Comment #2 from Dan Gohman sunfish at google dot com 2013-04-15 03:53:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think 'x' can not present negative value.
The unary minus operator is defined for unsigned types. It doesn't produce
signed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
--- Comment #3 from Dan Gohman sunfish at google dot com 2013-04-15 03:54:32
UTC ---
Pulling the unary minus out into a separate statement, like this:
uint64_t y = -x;
return x = INT64_MAX ? x : -y;
causes the program to execute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
--- Comment #4 from Chung-Ju Wu jasonwucj at gmail dot com 2013-04-15
04:18:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I think 'x' can not present negative value.
The unary minus operator is defined for unsigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
--- Comment #5 from Dan Gohman sunfish at google dot com 2013-04-15 05:12:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I think 'x' can not present negative value.
The unary minus operator is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956
--- Comment #6 from Dan Gohman sunfish at google dot com 2013-04-15 05:14:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Pulling the unary minus out into a separate statement, like this:
uint64_t y = -x;
return x = INT64_MAX ? x : -y;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56960
Bug #: 56960
Summary: How to set up stack pointer in gcc 4.7.2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
44 matches
Mail list logo
