http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44175
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49257
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #57 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
06:28:44 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jun 8 06:28:41 2011
New Revision: 174796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174796
Log:
2011-06-08 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49310
--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-06-08 07:16:06 UTC ---
the testcase from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20290
can be used more conveniently. It runs in 1.4s and still spends 50%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49311
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
08:02:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
This is a dup of
I think there are several hundred already. Not worth marking them as
duplicate,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49322
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49319
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49320
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49239
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49310
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49320
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-06-08 09:54:08
UTC ---
Yes, sorry, I had testsuite results with preprocessed sources from an older
revision, and when looking at the testcase sources, I was checking current
trunk -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49311
--- Comment #7 from Hartmut Schirmer hartmut.schirmer at arcormail dot de
2011-06-08 09:57:58 UTC ---
class A
{
public:
static const unsigned first = 1;
enum { second = 2 };
};
should behave similar in all cases address of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49303
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
09:59:26 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Jun 8 09:59:23 2011
New Revision: 174801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174801
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49303
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49311
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
10:27:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Does the way I use an rvalue change it's definition?
I don't understand the question, I don't know what you mean by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49257
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-06-08 10:31:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
It would need @plt for flag_pic, and somehow ensure that the %ebx is
initialized, plus whatever else is needed for calls on e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46003
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49323
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/integer-typedef.C
scan-assembler-times *
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21953
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08 11:39:16
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Jun 8 11:39:14 2011
New Revision: 174804
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174804
Log:
PR middle-end/21953
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49322
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-06-08
11:47:36 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 174779 I only see
FAIL: 20_util/is_move_assignable/value.cc (test for excess errors)
WARNING:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48825
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21953
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49323
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44175
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
12:16:49 UTC ---
Additionally, if the only deep recursion problem is during GC, perhaps:
--- gcc/cp/cp-tree.h 2011-05-27 21:13:30.946483346 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49323
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-06-08
12:19:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 24466 [details]
gcc47-pr49323.patch
Does this work for you?
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, yes it does (I cannot test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49322
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-06-08
12:31:20 UTC ---
I have forgotten to say that I see the failure with -m64 only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49322
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47739
Jan Smets jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #29 from Kris kristopher.kuhlman at gmail dot com 2011-06-08
13:12:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
r174416 fixes all the test cases in this PR (except comment #11, which is
invalid). I'm glad we finally nailed this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49310
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-06-08 13:23:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Using -g -O2 -fbounds-check instead of -g -O1 -fbounds-check cures it,
or e.g. -g -O1 -fbounds-check --param
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49321
Yu Simin silver24k at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||silver24k at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49310
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
13:34:42 UTC ---
10 was the minimal value to get reasonable debug info in some cases (e.g.
gcc.dg/guality/), so perhaps 20 is too much and we should go down to the
default of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49310
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
13:38:51 UTC ---
Or alternatively make it more dynamic, like if in one function the maximum
level is reached or almost reached (so it could be checked only in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #30 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08 13:39:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
Will this fix be applied to 4.6 or 4.5?
Usually we only backport regression fixes, and since this is technically not a
regression, the default
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #31 from Kris kristopher.kuhlman at gmail dot com 2011-06-08
13:49:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
(In reply to comment #29)
Will this fix be applied to 4.6 or 4.5?
However, if your life depends on it, we could maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
13:51:34 UTC ---
Hm, this isn't going to work for all cases. When I reproduce the problem on
powerpc64-linux without forcing a hardware square root, I see:
spawn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49305
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
14:03:02 UTC ---
It's my fault after all. The patch r174586 should check the mode
parameter too. Without checking mode, insn-recog routines are
confused and the combine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
--- Comment #64 from PcX xunxun1982 at gmail dot com 2011-06-08 14:26:05 UTC
---
I found that the shared or static gcc edition made a great difference of the wx
unicode release mono dll size.
-
At first, I build the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
Summary: iso_varying_string and reshape fail
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46003
--- Comment #7 from Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
15:49:02 UTC ---
Test g++.dg/template/cond5.C starts passing for arm-none-linux-gnueabi with
r174682, the fix for PR49134 mentioned in comment 6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
--- Comment #2 from Joshua Cogliati jjcogliati-r1 at yahoo dot com 2011-06-08
16:30:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Not an analysis, just some observations ...
I get different results with different compilers:
gfortran 4.7:
array2d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49325
Summary: Incorrect target HAVE_INITFINI_ARRAY check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49326
Summary: Lambda arguments should not have a default value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49326
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
16:50:42 UTC ---
If you get a warning with -pedantic that usually means it's a G++ extension.
If you don't want the extension use -pedantic-errors so it is rejected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49325
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49326
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-06-08 16:54:34 UTC ---
I compiled with -std=c++0x, so GCC extensions should be turned off.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49326
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
17:05:06 UTC ---
No, that's not how it works, read the manual for -std and -pedantic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-08 17:07:42 UTC ---
Proposed fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00661.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49327
Summary: Parse error involving templated method inside
templated class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49327
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49327
--- Comment #2 from robinei at gmail dot com 2011-06-08 17:35:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
You want:
DelegateType::template from_methodT(object_ptr);
Doh! thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49323
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
17:36:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 17:36:12 2011
New Revision: 174813
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174813
Log:
PR testsuite/49323
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28220
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-06-08
17:41:07 UTC ---
Andrew, does it make sense to have this PR still open?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49326
Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
17:48:11 UTC ---
I meant (*p)++; instead of *p++; sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49323
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49308
Arthur O'Dwyer arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-06-08 17:59:18 UTC ---
Perhaps something like:
union { int i; char c[8]; } u;
int
main ()
{
int *p;
asm volatile ( : =r (p) : 0 (u.c[1]));
*p++;
return 0;
}
compile+run and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2011-06-08 18:12:40
UTC ---
How about compiling this with -Wcast-align and looking for a warning message:
char *y;
typedef char __attribute__ ((__aligned__(__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__))) c;
c *z;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49328
Summary: Internal compiler error due to explicit array bounds
in contained routine argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #12 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2011-06-08 20:07:04
UTC ---
Checking for a warning using check_no_compiler_messages seems as easy or easier
then checking the return code so I did that. I have submitted a patch to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49328
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-06-08
20:11:38 UTC ---
Confirmed on gcc4.5.2 and 4.5.3, but AFAICT this has been fixed on gcc4.6 and
4.7 (trunk) between revisions 17 and 170140.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49329
Summary: Static method with std::string parameter gets messed
up with non-static method with bool parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Summary: Integer arithmetic on addresses optimised with pointer
arithmetic rules
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49328
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-06-08
20:22:40 UTC ---
Confirmed on gcc4.5.2 and 4.5.3, but AFAICT this has been fixed on gcc4.6 and
4.7 (trunk) between revisions 17 and 170140.
Sorry I did not read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49329
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
20:25:50 UTC ---
I think GCC is correct here. EDG gives a similar error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
--- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk harald at gigawatt dot nl 2011-06-08
20:42:04 UTC ---
A similar example, but one which does not convert the integer back to a
pointer:
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
int a;
int main() {
unsigned long b =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49331
Summary: Accepts invalid specification expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12255
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49329
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
21:29:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I want a static and a non-static method with the same name
you might want to rethink that
cc::xx is a qualified name lookup, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49107
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
21:35:05 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 8 21:35:02 2011
New Revision: 174820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174820
Log:
PR c++/49107
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48468
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
21:39:50 UTC ---
Note that the fix I just checked in for 49107 delays substitution into
noexcept-specifications, so they are no longer usable for SFINAE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49332
Summary: [C++0x] noexcept ignored on function pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49332
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
21:47:04 UTC ---
Or rather in C++98 it was observable through diagnostics, but couldn't change
the behavior of a well-defined program.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49332
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49259
Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49259
Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44175
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49324
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49333
Summary: [cppcheck][PATCH] found a resource leak in
gcc/gcc/gcov-io.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49334
Summary: [cppcheck] possible index out of bounds in
gcc/ada/adaint.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49333
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49335
Summary: ARM: Invalid assembler generated while compiling C++
code from 'codeblocks'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49333
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
22:25:35 UTC ---
Oh the second hunk of the patch is very bad as it closes a file descriptor that
has an associated FILE to it.
'
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran,lto --with-mode=thumb
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-float=softfp --with-fpu=neon
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110608 (experimental) [trunk revision 174795] (GCC)
michaelh@ursa2:~/linaro/bugs$ as -v
GNU assembler version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49333
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
22:47:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Oh the second hunk of the patch is very bad as it closes a file descriptor
that
has an associated FILE to it.
I should say the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49305
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-08
23:13:30 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Jun 8 23:13:27 2011
New Revision: 174824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174824
Log:
PR target/49305
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49305
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49336
Summary: ATAN2 values differ from those specified in
documentation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49337
Summary: Improve Gnatmake to work without static libraries.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49333
--- Comment #4 from Martin Ettl ettl.martin at gmx dot de 2011-06-09 00:41:41
UTC ---
Thanks, i already filed a bug at cppchecks bugtracker about this issue:
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/cppcheck/ticket/2830
Many thanks for your help and best
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49154
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-09
01:31:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 24470
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24470
A patch to the CRIS port to go with the documentation update.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49030
Michael Hope michael.hope at linaro dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.hope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
momchil at xaxo dot eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||momchil at xaxo dot eu
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49154
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-09
01:54:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 24471
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24471
Repeat mentioned SEGV at patched r174780 with cc1 -fpreprocessed -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49154
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-09
02:34:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Will post that patch momentarily.
Done: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00697.html
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
