https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
A function declaration with forward declared parameters it is a prototype, sort
of. Not defining the forward declared parameter as a real parameter should
probably be flagged as an error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63592
Bug ID: 63592
Summary: Linux kernel build failure due to duplicate exported
symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63567
--- Comment #11 from Sasha Levin ---
That does the trick. Thanks!
A different issue with the patch I've previously bisected came up, I'll open a
different bug report for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #69 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
The patch in c#57 disables memory equiv substitution for the memory
with base+index and base+display addressing.
static bool
sh_cannot_substitute_equiv_p (rtx subst)
{
if (TARGET_SHMEDIA)
return fal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57925
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|No s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
--- Comment #5 from Kjetil Matheussen ---
Sorry, complete example below. The problem with the code is:
1. Proto doesn't match function. There is an extra semicolon in the proto, but
not in the function itself.
2. Calling "afunction" may cause me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
--- Comment #3 from Kjetil Matheussen ---
I didn't know about this gnu extension. But regardless, shouldn't gcc complain
when the proto doesn't match the function itself?
Also, although I don't understand how this extension works from the
docume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63591
Bug ID: 63591
Summary: No syntax error yielded for semicolons inside a
function proto, instead code with memory corruption
can be created
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63567
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks. This fixes it (I need to write a proper testcase and test it).
2014-10-18 Marek Polacek
PR c/63567
* c-typeck.c (output_init_element): Allow initializing objects with
static storage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63567
--- Comment #9 from Sasha Levin ---
I've attached the preprocessed kernel/smpboot.c. The problem seems to be in
line 24563:
static struct mutex smpboot_threads_lock = { .count = { (1) } , .wait_lock =
(spinlock_t ) { { .rlock = { .raw_lock = { {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63567
--- Comment #8 from Sasha Levin ---
Created attachment 33756
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33756&action=edit
Preprocessed kernel/smpboot.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63590
Bug ID: 63590
Summary: wrong code with -mstringop-strategy=vector_loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63582
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63589
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63553
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 18 14:35:51 2014
New Revision: 216427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-18 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/63553
* resolve.c (resolve_ord
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63589
Bug ID: 63589
Summary: find_addr2line does not consider last PATH component
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63588
Bug ID: 63588
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 33754
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33754&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63587
Bug ID: 63587
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE : tree check: expected var_decl,
have result_decl in add_local_variables, at
tree-inline.c:4112
Product: gcc
Version: 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63584
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63586
Bug ID: 63586
Summary: x+x+x+x -> 4*x in gimple
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55698
--- Comment #3 from Максим Прохоренко ---
Thanks guys.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48116
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #40 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Oct 18 10:51:08 2014
New Revision: 216424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/53513
* config/sh/sh-modes.def (PSI): Remove.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55698
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
*** Bug 63585 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63585
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxim.prohorenko at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55698
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48116
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.0 |4.9.0
Target Milestone|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63500
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sat Oct 18 09:33:28 2014
New Revision: 216423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-18 François Dumont
Jonathan Wakely
PR libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63585
--- Comment #2 from Максим Прохоренко ---
clang return all warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63585
Bug ID: 63585
Summary: no warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63585
--- Comment #1 from Максим Прохоренко ---
int f (double x)
{
if (x > 0 || x < 0)
return 1;
// ok - warn
}
struct value
{
double x;
int operator== (const value &a)
{
if (a.x < x || a.x > x)
return 0;
// no warn ??
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63567
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Well, can you give me preprocessed source code then?
Because the short testcase in Comment 1 is accepted now.
39 matches
Mail list logo
