http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49057
Summary: benchmark of gcc. a piece of loop code compiled by
gcc-4.5.1 is slower compiled by gcc-4.4.2 when run on
cortex-a9.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
--- Comment #4 from Cecilio 2011-05-19 05:39:43
UTC ---
Ok Thank you, I will report to glbc. But, to try to learn and understand
something, could you please answer a question for me?:
My understanding is that printf truncates, so
'printf("%.2f"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-05-19
05:13:25 UTC ---
Thomas,
What are the correct results for this test case:
implicit none
integer, parameter :: RT = 8
write(*, "(rc,f11.2,4x,'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #21 from davidxl 2011-05-19 05:02:29
UTC ---
Before a better fix is found, is the proposed patch ok? If yes, I will do more
testing and submit to gcc-patches@
David
(In reply to comment #19)
> On Tue, 17 May 2011, rakdver at kam do
|in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to |2000/2006 failed to build
|build |with LTO
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-19 01:05:37
UTC ---
On Linux/x86-64, revision 20110518 failed to build 32bit 191.fma3d with LTO:
gfortran -m32 -O2 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49056
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: OMP parallel for with template constexpr
function, LTO and debug options.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49055
Summary: 4.6.0 libjava 64-bit + 32-bit multilib compile fails
due missing -isystem and -nostdinc++ with $OBJDIR !=
$topsrcdir build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49002
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18
22:56:37 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed May 18 22:56:35 2011
New Revision: 173881
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173881
Log:
Properly handle 256bit load cast.
gcc/
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from ja
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49002
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18
22:12:30 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed May 18 22:12:28 2011
New Revision: 173880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173880
Log:
Properly handle 256bit load cast.
gcc/
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49054
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49051
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 21:50:42 UTC ---
gdb shows the following backtrace:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0050f8fc in load_derived_extensions () at
/home/jweil/gcc47/trunk/gcc/fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49053
Summary: Please add an option to catch empty statements
(-Wempty-statement ?)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48706
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49054
Summary: useless cmp+jmp generated for switch when "default:"
is unreachable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
20:39:08 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 18 20:39:05 2011
New Revision: 173876
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173876
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49039
* tree-vrp.c (e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49002
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-18 20:38:59
UTC ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01325.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.5.3 |
Version|4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
20:47:19 UTC ---
In the ISO C++ Standard which we are implementing, the semantics of
setprecision and numeric output in general, is specified in terms of printf
behavior. In this specific implementatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
20:43:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 18 20:43:44 2011
New Revision: 173877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173877
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49039
* tree-vrp.c (e
target: mips-elf
version: 4.4.1
There's a problem where compiling code with -fno-delayed-branch still fills
branch delay slots.
[ubxju10]/home/jupiter/tmorita/dhrystone/test 1097 % cat minlib.c
#include
int printf(const char *format, ...)
{
register int a0 asm ("a0");
register
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49052
Fabio changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://bugs.launchpad.net/
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49052
Summary: i386 version of gcc-4.5 fails to compile C or Fortran
files on CIFS mounts
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
--- Comment #2 from Cecilio 2011-05-18 20:23:23
UTC ---
printf output is 5798.12. I think this is the expected output. Does this
confirms your guess? (sorry, I don't understand your previous answer. My
knowledge about GCC is just the name "GCC".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48946
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49051
Summary: Doesn't SFINAE away an invalid substitution into
toplevel parameter type "T[N]"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48700
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 19:23:01 UTC ---
r173874 should fix the issue mentioned in comment #2, but the problem with
allocatable arrays in comment #5 is still present.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
18:40:35 UTC ---
Ok guys. Thanks a lot for the suggestions, indeed should figured out both
myself, eh! ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48700
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 18:51:11 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed May 18 18:51:08 2011
New Revision: 173874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173874
Log:
2011-05-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 18:27:15 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed May 18 18:27:11 2011
New Revision: 173872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173872
Log:
2011-05-18 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-18
18:31:39 UTC ---
For a variant (original, longer version), see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-05/msg00129.html
(That program compiles and runs w/o valgrind errors with ifort 11.1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
18:24:31 UTC ---
Or, rather:
template
void
swap(_Tp&, _Tp&);
template void __swap_dummy(T&& a,T&& b)
noexcept(noexcept(swap(a,b)));
template
void
swap(_Tp (&__a)[_Nm], _Tp (&__b)[_Nm])
n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
18:21:39 UTC ---
A workaround would be to use a forwarding function:
template
void
swap(_Tp&, _Tp&);
template
void __do_swap(T&& a,T&& b) { swap(a,b); }
template
void
swap(_Tp (&__a)[_Nm], _
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.1, 4.7.0
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
18:12:46 UTC ---
Eh, interesting indeed.
By the way, can you imagine a possible workaround for implementing in the
library the swap overload for arrays while also declaring it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
18:03:17 UTC ---
Hmm, that's tricky. G++ is saying that the two exception-specifications are
different because the unqualified lookups for swap differ, because the latter
one also finds the middle dec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49050
Summary: ICE with deferred character length derived type
component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49046
--- Comment #1 from Steve Richards 2011-05-18
17:40:54 UTC ---
I simplified this down to the following code that segment faults:
--- begin foo.c ---
int main(const int argc, const char* argv[])
{
asm ("adr r2, #0x10002101");
return 0;
}
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49015
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49027
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-18
17:36:18 UTC ---
IIRC this was done on purpose but I cannot find the original discussion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
17:40:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 24286
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24286
gcc46-pr49039.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49049
Summary: ICE in copyprop_hardreg_forward_1, at regcprop.c:767
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49048
Summary: setprecision rounding fails in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48948
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
17:19:19 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 18 17:19:15 2011
New Revision: 173869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173869
Log:
PR c++/48948
PR c++/49015
* class.c (fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49047
Summary: DW_AT_linkage_name missing for constructors and
destructors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49015
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-18
17:19:19 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 18 17:19:15 2011
New Revision: 173869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173869
Log:
PR c++/48948
PR c++/49015
* class.c (fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
16:55:20 UTC ---
Shorter testcase:
/* PR tree-optimization/49039 */
extern void abort (void);
int cnt;
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
{
unsigned int mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49046
Summary: code fragment with inline assembly seg faults gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
16:04:51 UTC ---
BTW, on the trunk it isn't really fixed, but actually made even worse. Not
only is the _126 == 0 test optimized into false, but additionally the test
above call to abort is optimized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #20 from davidxl 2011-05-18 15:51:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> On Tue, 17 May 2011, rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
> >
> > --- Comment #15 from rakdver at kam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-18
15:43:33 UTC ---
Apparently the second vrp pass incorrectly optimizes away the
if (Token.empty ()) continue;
test.
We have:
...
Split$Length_126 = MIN_EXPR ;
if (Split$Length_126 == 0)
goto ;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
Summary: [C++0x] unexpected "different exception specifier"
error with noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
--- Comment #18 from Arnaud Lacombe 2011-05-18
15:17:48 UTC ---
Yes, the original test case is fine now, but not the updated snippet I posted.
Maybe should I open a new bug ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49044
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
14:58:25 UTC ---
Normally, a "sorry" message means the issue is known...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49044
Summary: [C++0x] mangling overload in decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:33:56 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:33:53 2011
New Revision: 173862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173862
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48989
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:29:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:29:24 2011
New Revision: 173860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173860
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:33:24 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:33:21 2011
New Revision: 173861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173861
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:24:09 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:24:05 2011
New Revision: 173859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173859
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
Backp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49018
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48703
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
13:29:28 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 13:29:24 2011
New Revision: 173860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173860
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49043
Summary: Returns from lambda functions incorrectly detected as
"exits" from OpenMP loops in surrounding code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49028
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Wyderski 2011-05-18
12:02:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Maybe we can do some generic clever tricks to (A /[ex] CST1) % CST2?
> We'd like to re-associate it somehow.
Wouldn't it be possible to do add the followi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49039
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
11:56:45 UTC ---
-O -ftree-vrp is broken, -O works. VRP1 performs quite some jump threading.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41881
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #11 from I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49037
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
11:30:15 UTC ---
Jon, if you want to send to the mailing list the deprecation bits, just to make
sure we are all on the same page on this, it would be great. Really, I never
really liked this code, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49016
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41881
--- Comment #10 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 11:27:56 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Wed May 18 11:27:51 2011
New Revision: 173856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173856
Log:
PR tree-optimization/41881
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49042
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
--- Comment #17 from Jing Yu 2011-05-18 11:06:35 UTC
---
I am on leave from 02/01/2011 to 05/30/2011. I may not reply your
email during this period.
If you have Android toolchain questions/issues/requests, please
contact Doug (dougk...@google.co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49041
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48207
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42494
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-18
10:22:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> The following code would work anyway:
No, it would make this ambiguous:
#include
using namespace std;
int main()
{
strchr("foo", 'f');
}
(In re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49037
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-18
10:31:46 UTC ---
The static data members aren't initialized before they're first used and I
don't see an easy way to fix it.
I agree with Paolo. At the very least we should mark it _GLIBCXX_DEPRECAT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48989
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-18
10:36:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 18 10:36:45 2011
New Revision: 173854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173854
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33935
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-18
10:08:22 UTC ---
*** Bug 49020 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #19 from __vic 2011-05-18 10:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
Summary|ICE in simplify_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49042
Summary: wrong "protected" in c++0x when using template and
decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45098
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 10:20:59 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed May 18 10:20:55 2011
New Revision: 173853
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173853
Log:
2011-05-18 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49041
Summary: ICE when compiling with lto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49038
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49037
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49020
--- Comment #16 from __vic 2011-05-18 09:55:34 UTC ---
Initial problem is that the following standard-conforming code is not compiled
by GCC.
#include
template
void f(Iter i1, Iter i2)
{
}
int main()
{
const char *st = "abc";
f(st, std:
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
