http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51316
--- Comment #2 from Nikolka tsoae at mail dot ru 2011-11-27 08:37:37 UTC ---
Note that this usage is not valid in C1X.
Could you explain?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51278
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-27 10:18:28 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sun Nov 27 10:18:25 2011
New Revision: 181763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181763
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51278
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
P.S.:
A workaround has been compiling with the options
-fkeep-inline-functions -fno-crossjumping
I don't know which of the two options is responsible for avoiding the
problem but can test if it makes a difference to you.
It is -fkeep-inline-functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51301
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50682
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-11-27 13:13:45
UTC ---
Created attachment 25919
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25919
another testcase
This testcase doesn't need any -fno-* flags. It might be the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51316
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-11-27 15:58:15 UTC ---
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, tsoae at mail dot ru wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51316
--- Comment #2 from Nikolka
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
P.S.:
A workaround has been compiling with the options
-fkeep-inline-functions -fno-crossjumping
I don't know which of the two options is responsible for avoiding the
problem but can test if it makes a difference to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51322
Bug #: 51322
Summary: [C++11] wrong mangling with argument packs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51311
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-27
18:01:22 UTC ---
I don't think this is a bug as in_data can be changed by a different function
other than bar().
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-27
18:35:52 UTC ---
Fails have changed somewhat but are still present:
WARNING: program timed out.FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
WARNING: program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25187|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-27
18:54:10 UTC ---
This is hack, but test doesn't fail if I interchange ldo and
.cfi_def_cfa_offset
lines:
ldo 64(%r30),%r30
.cfi_def_cfa_offset -64
How should a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-27
18:59:40 UTC ---
You don't. We're supposed to prevent frame-related insns
from appearing in branch delay slots.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323
Bug #: 51323
Summary: g++ confuses this with function argument in optimized
call
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-11-27 19:07:46 UTC ---
On 27-Nov-11, at 1:59 PM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
You don't. We're supposed to prevent frame-related insns
from appearing in branch delay slots.
Is this a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-27
19:24:34 UTC ---
Similar fails:
FAIL: c-c++-common/tm/inline-asm-2.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: c-c++-common/tm/inline-asm-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51324
Bug #: 51324
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic-compare-exchange-3.c (test for
excess errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47868
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2011-11-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #11 from Cesar Strauss cestrauss at gmail dot com 2011-11-27
20:55:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 25922
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25922
Debug log of PR49084
The cause of the access violation is due to an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51307
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-11-27 21:18:46 UTC ---
On 26-Nov-11, at 6:40 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Probably a missing CLOCK_REALTIME on the system (11.31 apparently
has it). You
need to add something
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51307
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-11-27 21:30:07 UTC ---
On 27-Nov-11, at 4:18 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
typedef enum __clockid_t {
CLOCK_INVALID = 0,
CLOCK_REALTIME = 1, /* the system-wide wall clock */
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51325
Bug #: 51325
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE with -flto and union in template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51325
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51326
Bug #: 51326
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE with invalid override
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51326
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51327
Bug #: 51327
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE with invalid constexpr parameter
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-11-27 21:56:30 UTC ---
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 07:21:29PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The problem comes about because of gen_special_c_interop_ptr() in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51327
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-27
22:06:23 UTC ---
The cause of the access violation is due to an attempt to pass a null string
pointer to asprintf in internal_error_function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51328
Bug #: 51328
Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE on invalid template
parameter
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51328
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50814
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-11-27 22:38:34 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
Will be slightly different because sh2a's shadshld are 4-byte
insns. Perhaps something like below will work, though I don't
test it at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51329
Bug #: 51329
Summary: O3 optimizes away a loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50814
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-28
00:09:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
According to the SW manual document rej09b0051_sh2a.pdf the SHAD and SHLD
insns
have the same 2-byte format as on SH3:
SHAD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51329
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #13 from Cesar Strauss cestrauss at gmail dot com 2011-11-28
00:46:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Zero is UNKNOWN_LOCATION. The problem is probably that the location mapping
isn't initialized yet. What happens if you move
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51273
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2011-11-28 01:06:09 UTC ---
Proposed patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg02460.html
Thanks for reporting.
Patrick Marlier.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #8 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-28
01:12:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 25924
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25924
phone.cpp version without initializer list or map. still crashes.
compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #9 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-28
01:23:08 UTC ---
Sun 11/27/2011 17:19:49.04|C:\djc462beta\bin|gcc -print-prog-name=cc1plus
Exiting due to signal SIGSEGV
General Protection Fault at eip=1bb2
eax=0c72
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #10 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-28
02:07:37 UTC ---
I am going to try a test program which does not #include anything and see if it
compiles.
Sun 11/27/2011 18:04:02.90|C:\prj\test\djgpp|c:\djc462~1\bin\gxx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #11 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-11-28
02:19:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 25925
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25925
cpp462b.cpp smaller test case causes compiler internal error
Sun 11/27/2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25917|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25916|phone.cpp original program |phone.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51311
--- Comment #2 from Michael Bruck bruck.michael at googlemail dot com
2011-11-28 02:34:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think this is a bug as in_data can be changed by a different function
other than bar().
Before I stripped this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51311
--- Comment #3 from Michael Bruck bruck.michael at googlemail dot com
2011-11-28 02:44:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think this is a bug as in_data can be changed by a different
function
other than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51050
--- Comment #1 from Wim Lewis wiml at dot org 2011-11-28 04:26:14 UTC ---
Still broken in rev 181770. Configuring without LTO does not change things.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50814
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-28
04:31:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 25927
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25927
A patch
I'm testing the attached patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #14 from Andris Pavenis andris.pavenis at iki dot fi 2011-11-28
04:43:41 UTC ---
Verify that You have
c:/djc462~1/libexec/gcc/djgpp/4.62/cc1plus.exe at all
(I suspect that it is not there due missing installation of gpp462b.zip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51320
--- Comment #15 from Andris Pavenis andris.pavenis at iki dot fi 2011-11-28
05:18:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Verify that You have
c:/djc462~1/libexec/gcc/djgpp/4.62/cc1plus.exe at all
(I suspect that it is not there due missing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51329
--- Comment #2 from Andrew andrew.mcpherson at gmail dot com 2011-11-28
06:45:29 UTC ---
Thanks, will report to apple.
(In reply to comment #1)
First try to using a newer version of GCC, since 4.2.x is no longer
supported.
Also this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #8 from Denis Excoffier g...@denis-excoffier.org 2011-11-28
07:41:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 25928
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25928
preprocessed exclude.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
Denis Excoffier g...@denis-excoffier.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-28
07:51:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
- conf2 (is_bind_c);
+ if (!(name (strcmp(name, c_null_ptr) == 0 || strcmp(name,
c_null_funptr) == 0)))
+conf2
56 matches
Mail list logo
