http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 06:09:19 UTC ---
the backport seems to work for my test cases.
Side effects need to be verified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 06:11:19 UTC ---
seems fixed by the back-port published in comment 4 PR53768
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 07:25:35 UTC ---
It HAS a side effect I observed also in 4.8 and had no time to reduce yet
something pretty weird
plenty of
error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 07:39:02 UTC ---
The patch HAS a side effect that I observed also in 4.8 and had no time to
reduce yet.
(At least now I know the origin of it)
something pretty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53578
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53802
Bug #: 53802
Summary: Spurious 'may be used uninitialized' related to shifts
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
09:55:43 UTC ---
IIRC recl is an unsigned integer? I will look further on this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53802
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #4 from Clive Page clivegpage at gmail dot com 2012-06-29
10:00:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
IIRC recl is an unsigned integer? I will look further on this one.
But Fortran doesn't have unsigned integers. If the intention is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
10:07:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
But Fortran doesn't have unsigned integers. If the intention is to indicate
no
practical limit, then I guess the value to return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
10:13:13 UTC ---
Yes, I am talking about our internal representation. I have to go look at the
code detail yet, I am just thinking out loud here on the bug report. It is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803
Bug #: 53803
Summary: --enable-target-optspace gives undefined references to
restgpr_*_x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 10:34:22 UTC ---
take back: (never do two updates at once)
in SOMETHING else committed between
gcc version 4.7.2 20120615 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804
Bug #: 53804
Summary: branch reordering missed optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 10:36:46 UTC ---
take back: (never do two updates at once)
in SOMETHING ELSE committed between
gcc version 4.7.2 20120615 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
10:43:19 UTC ---
On x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, this case is optimized because the second branch
condition is combined for both foo1 and foo2:
bb 3:
D.1723_4 = b_3(D) 0;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53337
vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 10:45:05 UTC ---
*** Bug 53337 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
10:50:48 UTC ---
Candidates are
+2012-06-19 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
+
+ PR c++/52637
+ * dwarf2out.c (modified_type_die): Use scope_die_for.
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
Bug #: 53805
Summary: combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-06-29 11:49:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
take back: (never do two updates at once)
in SOMETHING ELSE committed between
gcc version 4.7.2 20120615 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29 12:19:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce new ones.
That would make a lot of sense, and assuming it is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
12:22:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce new ones.
That would make a lot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53806
Bug #: 53806
Summary: Missed optimization (a=b)(a=b) with trapping
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768
--- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 12:43:03 UTC ---
ok.
II think somebody should start building boost and its test-suite with lto:
many of these regressions are found thanks to boost after all…
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52589
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52589
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52589
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
13:17:49 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 29 13:17:44 2012
New Revision: 189073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189073
Log:
2012-06-29 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 13:20:31 UTC ---
the regression in comment 3 happens with
gcc version 4.7.2 20120620 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 188811] (GCC)
(and was a fix required
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25643
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
13:29:36 UTC ---
I have now ask at http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2012-June/005446.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32759
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16063
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37541
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
13:57:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 29 13:56:51 2012
New Revision: 189075
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189075
Log:
2012-06-29 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37541
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40194
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-06-29 14:14:16 UTC ---
this testcase now looks optimized (at least the optimized dump contains return
1; as expected). I guess this can be closed ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43768
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53578
--- Comment #12 from Zouzou internet at 123gen dot com 2012-06-29 14:16:16
UTC ---
applying the changes in rev 188646 to a MinGW with GCC 4.7.0 works fine and
doesn't reproduce the problem detailed in bug 46455.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43965
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40282
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2012-06-29 14:24:18 UTC ---
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce new ones.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47061
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41453
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47061
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
14:27:34 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 29 14:27:24 2012
New Revision: 189076
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189076
Log:
2012-06-29 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41737
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
14:34:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #65 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
14:34:34 UTC ---
I have posted the patch to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01928.html
along with an equivalent one for the 4.6 branch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2012-06-29 14:43:30 UTC ---
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
We happily remove dead trapping statements:
void foo(double x, int y)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47298
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34940
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-01-23 11:27:01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
14:54:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
We happily remove dead trapping statements:
void foo(double x,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47298
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 15:03:17 UTC ---
NOT when applied on the top of
gcc version 4.8.0 20120629 (experimental) [trunk revision 189073] (GCC)
svn diff
Index: gcc/tree.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
15:04:47 UTC ---
Steve Lionel points at the following:
If an error condition occurs during execution of an INQUIRE statement, all of
the inquiry speci er variables become
://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-29 15:03:17 UTC ---
NOT when applied on the top of
gcc version 4.8.0 20120629 (experimental) [trunk revision 189073] (GCC)
svn diff
Index: gcc/tree.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-06-29 16:03:07
UTC ---
Closed as invalid on the assumption that this is really a uclibc build bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53801
--- Comment #2 from somenath jalal somenath.jalal at gmail dot com 2012-06-29
16:18:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
gcc 4.2.1 is really really old. Please update to
something much newer. Try 4.5.4 or newer version.
Also, note the warning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53801
--- Comment #3 from somenath jalal somenath.jalal at gmail dot com 2012-06-29
16:20:28 UTC ---
Thanks kargl.
I will update the gcc version. And from ld means what? That is the point I
did not understand. And importantly ifort is also giving same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43665
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53807
Bug #: 53807
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c scan-tree-dump-times slp
basic block vectorized using SLP 1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47844
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51652
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
Bug #: 53808
Summary: Undefined symbol when building a library with lto
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41737
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46532
--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-06-29 18:46:13 UTC ---
*** Bug 41737 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
--- Comment #6 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-29 18:49:35 UTC
---
Pinging on this again since this patch has been back ported to a couple of
4.6-based branches now. Anyone attempting to use a recent cloog release with
GCC 4.6 will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53809
Bug #: 53809
Summary: ice then Abort
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53809
--- Comment #1 from dcb dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2012-06-29 19:04:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27717
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27717
gzipped C++ source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53809
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
Bug #: 53810
Summary: template class static not defined
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Robb ajrobb57 at gmail dot com 2012-06-29 20:41:08
UTC ---
template int n
class Class {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53811
Bug #: 53811
Summary: ICE: in insn_default_length, at
config/i386/i386.md:529 (unrecognizable insn) with
-mcmodel=large
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53811
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Hansen tobias.han at gmx dot de 2012-06-29
21:32:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 27718
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27718
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-06-29 21:44:56 UTC ---
Anything left to be done?
I see
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc -Warray-temporaries pr45159_4_red.f90
pr45159_4_red.f90:7.15:
a(-3:9:3) = a(-6:18:6)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
22:01:07 UTC ---
GCC is having the correct behavior. You don't have a definition for the static
const class variable, only the declaration. You need the definition as you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53812
Bug #: 53812
Summary: lower_stmt (4.6), verify_gimple_stmt (4.7.0, 4.7.1)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53539
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
22:21:35 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jun 29 22:21:30 2012
New Revision: 189085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189085
Log:
Use int for WCHAR_TYPE
-as --with-as=/opt/gnu64/bin/as
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --enable-shared --with-local-prefix=/opt/gnu64
--prefix=/nowhere --build=hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 --enable-threads=posix
--disable-nls --with-gmp=/opt/gnu64/gcc/gmp
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.2 20120629
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53813
--- Comment #1 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-06-29 23:17:13 UTC ---
Attached preprocessed source.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
=hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 --enable-threads=posix
--disable-nls --with-gmp=/opt/gnu64/gcc/gmp
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.2 20120629 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 189060] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
23:43:23 UTC ---
We have more then one thing to fix here.
Try this variation:
integer(kind=8) :: s, r
open(unit=1, file='testsize.f90', status='old', recl=500)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-30
00:32:29 UTC ---
For completeness, in the case I give in Comment #9, I get
Operating system error: Cannot allocate memory
Memory allocation failed
I have instrumented a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-30
01:35:12 UTC ---
Maybe a new PR for this is in order.
gdb output with test case in Comment #9
(gdb)
634 if (flags-form == FORM_FORMATTED)
(gdb)
636 if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53815
Bug #: 53815
Summary: Explicit specialization of member enumeration of a
class template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
90 matches
Mail list logo
