http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57759
Bug ID: 57759
Summary: Concatenated messages are not translated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57329
--- Comment #4 from Terry Guo terry.guo at arm dot com ---
Now the fix is in 4.8 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-06/msg01005.html. I think we can close this
bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57760
Bug ID: 57760
Summary: preprocessor directive supress g++ warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57690
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57760
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1)
I also think that the meaning of the code is well-defined only for C++11,
because in C++03 the concept of an explicit instantiation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57735
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
It does for G++, it's been accepted as an extension in C++03 mode for years.
What I actually meant to say with my comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57504
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57761
Bug ID: 57761
Summary: USE_PROC_FOR_LIBRARIES does not work correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57762
Bug ID: 57762
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Memory leak in
gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03 after revision 200084
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56596
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I have opened pr57762 for the memory leak reported in comments #2 and #3 (with
the right bracketing this time).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
And I still believe the result should not depend on the optimization level.
Well, it does and IMO it has to (see below).
Note that compiling without -ffpe-trap the result
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57733
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nerge at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763
Bug ID: 57763
Summary: [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info
failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section
boundary
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30411
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30411action=edit
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30412
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30412action=edit
Corresponding .gcda file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Looking at the BB 28, we have following in _.212r.gcse2:
;; basic block 28, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 0, probably never executed
;; Invalid sum of outgoing probabilities 0.0%
;; prev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Misty De Meo misty at brew dot sh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||misty at brew dot sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
--- Comment #4 from Misty De Meo misty at brew dot sh ---
Created attachment 30413
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30413action=edit
Build logs for PowerPC MacOS X 10.4.11 failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
--- Comment #5 from Misty De Meo misty at brew dot sh ---
Created attachment 30414
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30414action=edit
libbacktrace config.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
--- Comment #6 from Misty De Meo misty at brew dot sh ---
The config.log for libbacktrace shows that it believes it found
_Unwind_GetIPInfo:
configure:11652: checking for _Unwind_GetIPInfo
configure:11667: /usr/local/bin/gcc-4.4 -c -g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43694
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Yes, I agree that there is a bug, and IMO it is in cpow/cpowf/cpowl.
With -ffpe-trap=invalid,zero,
as I wrote earlier, complex zero**I where I is integer equal to one,
does not raise
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Yes, I agree that there is a bug, ...
Then you should report to the library maintainers, not to gfortran.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749
--- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #9)
Yes, I agree that there is a bug, and IMO it is in cpow/cpowf/cpowl.
Vittorio,
I'm even still not convinced that there is a bug here,
you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57564
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57764
Bug ID: 57764
Summary: class static constexpr variables cannot be references
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57765
Bug ID: 57765
Summary: [C++11] Variadic Template Specialization does not
follow the INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2011 standard
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57766
Bug ID: 57766
Summary: [4.9 Regression]: gcc.sum
c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/sec_implicit_ex.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
GCC 4.9.0 20130630 (experimental).
35 matches
Mail list logo