http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 08:26:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Probably due to the fact that x86_64 defines TARGET_C_MODE_FOR_SUFFIX that
declares support for non-standard 'q' and 'w'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-15
08:44:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01198.html
Thanks. Note that pa handles 'q'.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 16:23:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01198.html
Thanks. Note that pa handles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #16 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-15
20:06:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
So, let's auto-detect support for non-standard suffixes in patch v2 [1].
[1]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
16:59:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the problem
seems related to the recent changes for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
20:20:27 UTC ---
OK, g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C will fail with the patch to control GNU
literal parsing. i.e. this behavior in intended.
The purpose of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-14
20:36:37 UTC ---
If you ask me, I have I slight preference for the latter, because isn't always
obvious what gnu++* includes beyond c++*. But Jason will tell you,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
21:52:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Invoke with gnu++0x:
// { dg-options -std=gnu++0x }
Invoke with new flag:
// { dg-options -std=c++0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-11-14
22:18:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the
problem
seems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-14
22:28:19 UTC ---
The latter seems indeed a target issue, as you can read here Hans-Peter
reported it for cris-elf, but have a look to the testresults mailing list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-14
22:30:51 UTC ---
In fact, however, a Linux target like s390x is also affected:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg01187.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-14 22:42:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Right, thanks, I was just about to analyze that one. Speaking of that
commit,
some of the new tests fail for me:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-15
02:39:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #3)
Excess errors:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
16 matches
Mail list logo
