http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joey.ye at arm dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61123
Bug ID: 61123
Summary: With LTO, -fno-short-enums is ignored, resulting in
ABI mis-matching in linking.
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
wangzheyu tony.wang at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tony.wang at arm dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61121
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50459
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 9 08:24:37 2014
New Revision: 210262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210262root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/50459
c-family/
* c-common.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50459
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61124
Bug ID: 61124
Summary: GCC manual has 68HC11/68HC12 info
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #46 from Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com ---
Roland, why do you think that what you see is false positives? I think these
are real, potentially harmful, races. Please test with gcc 4.9, and file bugs
if you still see any races.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61122
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61122
--- Comment #2 from Frank Heckenbach f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de ---
If it's not allowed, it should also fail at file-scope or function-scope,
shouldn't it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61125
Bug ID: 61125
Summary: static_cast of null pointer return invalid pointer
(not null)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61123
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61120
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61122
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No. At file or function scope the initializer is definitely used, and can
provide the array bound. On a non-static data member it is not used until the
object is constructed (and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tricky case, but fold also handles REALPART / IMAGPART of +, - and conjugate
and of a cexpi call. Of course that may not matter in the end, as
easily decompose probably doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:20:43 2014
New Revision: 210267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210267root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/config/avr
PR target/61055
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:25:11 2014
New Revision: 210268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210268root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/config/avr
Backport from 2014-05-09 trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Kenneth Zadeck zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zadeck at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:29:58 2014
New Revision: 210269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210269root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2014-05-09 trunk r210267
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Kenneth Zadeck zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:34:46 2014
New Revision: 210270
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210270root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2014-05-09 trunk r210267
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #10 from zadeck at gcc dot gnu.org zadeck at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: zadeck
Date: Fri May 9 12:21:23 2014
New Revision: 210274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210274root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-06 Kenneth Zadeck
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #3 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the clarification. In that case, what element does bit positions
96..127 correspond to in { 120, 0, 0, 0 }?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Kenneth Zadeck zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
Tricky case, but fold also handles REALPART / IMAGPART of +, - and conjugate
and of a cexpi call. Of course that may not matter in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #3 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #5 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, does that mean the folded value 120 is in the wrong place? The fix that I'm
testing swaps the first and last elements of the const vector {120, 0, 0, 0}.
PS: Sorry, my statement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Bug ID: 61126
Summary: gfortran does not enable -Wununused-parameter with
-Wextra
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tejas Belagod from comment #5)
So, does that mean the folded value 120 is in the wrong place? The fix that
I'm testing swaps the first and last elements of the const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
--- Comment #3 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot
com ---
The OP's suspicion/analysis was right. Here's a trivial patch that fixes the
problem.
diff --git gcc/config/avr/avr.c gcc/config/avr/avr.c
index
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
(In reply to Tejas Belagod from comment #5)
So, does that mean the folded value 120 is in the wrong place? The fix that
I'm testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61127
Bug ID: 61127
Summary: GNAT incorrectly accepts as a second association of
a generic formal package
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32768
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32768action=edit
partly reduced
I stopped reducing, it's very slow (because compiling the testcase is so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61115
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61109
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58614
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61073
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61028
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60953
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61109
--- Comment #2 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Fri May 9 14:06:15 2014
New Revision: 210277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210277root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR fortran/61109
* trans-array.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61109
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61128
Bug ID: 61128
Summary: [cr16] Incorrect code generated for udivmodsi4
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Before tunks we never bothered to compute [tailcall] before inlining
completed, but now explicitely setting the flag for thunks (and not letting
it be computed - why wouldn't that work?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
--- Comment #6 from Barry McInnes barry.j.mcinnes at noaa dot gov ---
Is there any documentation on the arguments -Wa,-q ?
With a link from Macports to /usr/bin/clang one program works without -Wa,-q,
but others still need those parameters to get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61092
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri May 9 15:02:09 2014
New Revision: 210278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210278root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-08 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61092
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer fweimer at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #2)
-Wunused-parameter is enabled by -Wall. I'm surprised that -Wextra is used
without -Wall, but it happens in the testsuite in more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
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=61126
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-Wunused-parameter is not included in -Wall but is implied by -Wall -Wextra
would mean that the test case assumes that it it is implied by -Wextra only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #20 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(gdb) print debug_cgraph_node(node)
__builtin_unreachable/1630 (void __builtin_unreachable()) @700099c0
Type: function
Visibility: external public visibility_specified artificial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Is there any documentation on the arguments -Wa,-q ?
-Wa,* is documented somewhere in the manual as the way to tell the assembler to
use the option *. AFAIR 'as -q' is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #21 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32770
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32770action=edit
full cgraph dump gzipped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3)
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #2)
-Wunused-parameter is enabled by -Wall. I'm surprised that -Wextra is used
without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)
The gfortran.dg/wextra_1.f test case assumes that -Wextra enables
-Wununused-parameter, but this does not happen. No warning is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
Thus, in GCC - whether Fortran or C - it is enabled with -Wextra, but only
if also -Wunused is used. The latter is implied by -Wall.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose doko at ubuntu dot com ---
Am 09.05.2014 18:02, schrieb manu at gcc dot gnu.org:
I don't understand how it was working before. What is exactly the
command-line passed to that testcase?
the test passes just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, I'm attaching the patchlet. I can submit it when stage #1 opens.
I obviously missed one stage #1, but this is now done:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)
The gfortran.dg/wextra_1.f test case assumes that -Wextra enables
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57494
YaoZhenGuo yaozhen_guo at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yaozhen_guo at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #2 from npl at chello dot at ---
I cant easily make a simple reproducible testcase as this is a custom realtime
OS for a very specific CPU. And I can only test this example next week at work
where I have hardware to run it.
And I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that the above code is broken in other ways:
-Wno-unused-parameter -Wextra will enable -Wunused-parameter, which is not what
should happen.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #12 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Fri May 9 16:59:56 2014
New Revision: 210279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210279root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport r210254 from trunk for Google b/14380607.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #13 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
Jeff,
Thanks for the fix! Confirming that it does indeed fix the application
issues we hit.
Teresa
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:54 PM, law at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #14 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com ---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #13)
Thanks for the fix!
Indeed.
Confirming that it does indeed fix the application
issues we hit.
I will add that we've had at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Paul, it is. I'd be surprised if both threading fixes aren't in by Monday.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61096
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 9 17:50:25 2014
New Revision: 210280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210280root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/61096
* c-parser.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61096
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61129
Bug ID: 61129
Summary: Feature request: integer-overflow-detecting arithmetic
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60019
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:16:11 2014
New Revision: 210284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210284root=gccview=rev
Log:
DR 5
PR c++/60019
* call.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:16:18 2014
New Revision: 210285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210285root=gccview=rev
Log:
DR 587
PR c++/51317
* call.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:16:05 2014
New Revision: 210283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210283root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/58714
* tree.c (stabilize_expr): A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32019
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:15:57 2014
New Revision: 210282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210282root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/32019
* call.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:15:57 2014
New Revision: 210282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210282root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/32019
* call.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22434
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:15:46 2014
New Revision: 210281
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210281root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/22434
* call.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32019
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
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=54348
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60019
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
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=51317
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
--prefix=/home/myname/opt/gcc480 --program-suffix=48
--bindir=/home/myname/bin --disable-nls --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.3 20140509 (prerelease) (GCC)
The host i686-Linux using an old fedora9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61130
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That is a warning, not the reason for bootstrap failure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
template typename struct A {
unsigned _width, _height, _depth, _spectrum;
template typename t A(t p1) {
int a = p1.size();
if (a) {
_width = p1._width;
_depth =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61130
--- Comment #2 from Ozkan Sezer sezeroz at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
That is a warning, not the reason for bootstrap failure.
Well it eventually results in an error:
In file included from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61130
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It could be far earlier than this, look for previous *** in the build log.
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
