https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80678
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, note the testcase has been ICEing even with older 6.x branch snapshots,
it is just that the testcase has been newly added.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80678
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It doesn't fail on x86_64/i686 where I've tested it.
Seems this is because r237426 has not been backported (and neither earlier
r237319). Richard, do we want to backport those? Aren't those wrong-code
fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80685
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Use -fno-builtins if you don't want gcc to assumes things about functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80685
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80685
Bug ID: 80685
Summary: -Wnonnull-compare warns based on builtin declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
--- Comment #2 from Helmut Grohne ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> Well, if headers move then configure (and related) tests that look at them
> will need updating. See how gcc/configure.ac looks in $target_header_dir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80669
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80280
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80280
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue May 9 02:47:14 2017
New Revision: 247778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR translation/80280 - Missing closing quote (%>) c/semantics.c and
c/c-ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64238
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This appears to work in GCC 7. At least, I can see a crash when using GCC 6,
but I don't see a crash when using revision 246286. Which revision are you
using for the crash you see?
I'm afraid that I do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80101
--- Comment #2 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Tue May 9 01:15:46 2017
New Revision: 24
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=24&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2017-05-08 Kelvin Nilsen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80684
Bug ID: 80684
Summary: poor error message and fix-it hint for a function with
an argument of undeclared type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68905
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80358
--- Comment #4 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Tue May 9 00:03:35 2017
New Revision: 247772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-08 Aaron Sawdey
Backport from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Paysan from comment #11)
> My guess. He mentions that he's not a lone wolf coder, and since he didn't
> understand why mt_allocator was active, I guessed that a coworker had
> enabled i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80683
Bug ID: 80683
Summary: Exceptions don't propagate through default member
initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80682
Bug ID: 80682
Summary: __is_trivially_constructible(void, int) returns true.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Paysan ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> > which he need to disable first
> > (after a coworker had enabled it somewhere in the source code):
>
> Where did you get that information? The blog post say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Paysan from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > "I dropped in jemalloc and ran the test. CPU usage dropped but otherwise
> > this had no effect."
> >
> > i.e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Paysan ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> "I dropped in jemalloc and ran the test. CPU usage dropped but otherwise
> this had no effect."
>
> i.e. jemalloc was not proposed as a solution.
That's the fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80681
Bug ID: 80681
Summary: missing -Wuninitialized for const or reference member
of a private base class
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80680
Bug ID: 80680
Summary: dead code elimination fails to remove unreferenced
function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 8 May 2017, helmut at subdivi dot de wrote:
> False negatives: Debian is about to further multiarch. That involves moving
> libc headers from /usr/include to /usr/include/$(DEB_HOST_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79930
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I wonder if we should back port this as well since the bug can have a serious
performance hit without it. ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80428
Tom Rini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69868
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon May 8 21:03:45 2017
New Revision: 247759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-05-08 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80679
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80280
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon May 8 20:50:24 2017
New Revision: 247758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR translation/80280
* config/sol2-c.c (so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80679
Bug ID: 80679
Summary: call of overloaded is ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80178
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 8 19:08:07 2017
New Revision: 247757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247757&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80178 - parameter passing for uncopyable classes
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80647
--- Comment #2 from Yale Zhang ---
Very interesting case. First, I didn't know unaligned loads were undefined
behavior on x86.
ICC 17 doesn't vectorize the loop probably because the destination and source
of the memmove() alias.
But apparently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80678
Bug ID: 80678
Summary: g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-79681-2.C fails with ICE
starting with r247678
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79930
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 8 18:22:44 2017
New Revision: 247755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-08 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/79930
* fronten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80646
--- Comment #3 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> So I start to belive this is a gdb bug.
Thanks, I filed a GDB bug report here:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21473
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
Bug ID: 80677
Summary: LIMITS_H_TEST is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80676
Bug ID: 80676
Summary: basic_stringbuf does not use initial capacity of SSO
string
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 8 17:56:13 2017
New Revision: 247753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-08 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80602
* m4/matmu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35412
R0b0t1 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r030t1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from R0b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80668
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80675
Bug ID: 80675
Summary: Incorrect implementation of LWG 2534
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Bug 51119 depends on bug 68600, which changed state.
Bug 68600 Summary: Inlined MATMUL is too slow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 68600, which changed state.
Bug 68600 Summary: Inlined MATMUL is too slow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80674
Bug ID: 80674
Summary: trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c:2578]: (style)
Redundant condition
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80672
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Unrelated issue in the same file:
trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.c:10817]: (style) Expression is always false because
'else if' condition matches previous condition at line 10803.
else if (scratch0 != scrat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80673
Bug ID: 80673
Summary: sparcv9-solaris2.11 bootstrap error: cannot convert
‘format_std_version {enum}’ to ‘const char*’ in
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80624
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Some more examples of misbehaviour caused by eof() being a valid character:
#include
#include
int main()
{
std::basic_ostringstream s;
s.put(u'\u');
assert( s.str().length() == 1 );
}
a.out: ex.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80672
Bug ID: 80672
Summary: gcc/config/sh/sh.c:716: prefer compare to find.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80671
Bug ID: 80671
Summary: config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c:416: bad
statement order ?
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80670
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80668
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80670
Bug ID: 80670
Summary: Member specialization of alias declaration from
different namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80669
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Paysan from comment #0)
> The documentation of mt_allocator is at least somewhat misleading:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/mt_allocator_impl.html
>
> "Notes about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Using the default configuration GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW has not made any
> difference to std::allocator since 2005 when r106665 was committed, changing
> the defaul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80645
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Using the default configuration GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW has not made any difference
to std::allocator since 2005 when r106665 was committed, changing the default
back to the allocator based on new/delete.
So if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80667
--- Comment #1 from Ed Catmur ---
note: the rationale for using std::integral_constant rather than a T non-type
argument is CWG 1315.
Clang rejects in -std=c++1z:
:22:63: error: ambiguous partial specializations of 'Impl >'
Impl> foo()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80669
Bug ID: 80669
Summary: [8 Regression] Bad -Wstringop-overflow warnings for
stpncpy
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Feel free to try to reproduce it or try to contact them. When we have a
reproducer, or even a valgrind report, then a bug report might be useful. Until
then it's not useful. "I read blog that said there's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80668
Bug ID: 80668
Summary: wrong error message with -finit-derived
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Paysan ---
So we close that without having tried to reproduce it? I would have put it
into "needinfo" mode, and ask that blog poster to actually fill in the gaps,
like "which version of libstdc++", "did you use the defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80664
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
NEW doesn't mean it's recent, it means it's been confirmed. If it hadn't been
confirmed it would be UNCONFIRMED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80662
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced thanks to K-ballo:
extern "C" int puts(const char*);
template
void operator<<(C&&, T const&) { puts("non-member"); }
struct my_stream {
template
void operator<<(T&&) { puts("member"); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80667
Bug ID: 80667
Summary: [c++1z] ice segfault on partial specialization with
non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80665
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
To clarify Richard's statement in the following statement is undefined
Derived* snd_ptr = fst_ptr->as();
When fst_ptr is a null pointer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80648
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80662
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao ---
std::basic_string<...> is too large. Replace it with a dummy
default constructable and copyable class Foo. Then get GIMPLE:
_1 = &->a;
_2 = std::vector::at (&strings, 0);
Foo::Foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrzej Krzemienski from comment #5)
> What does this mean that the status of this bug report is "NEW"? It is 2
> years old. In GCC Bugzilla one can assign status "CONFIRMED" to bug reports
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #5 from Andrzej Krzemienski ---
What does this mean that the status of this bug report is "NEW"? It is 2 years
old. In GCC Bugzilla one can assign status "CONFIRMED" to bug reports. Why is
this one not confirmed? Was nobody able to co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80662
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Further reduced:
namespace std
{
//
struct string
{
string(const char* s) : str(s) { }
const char* str;
};
//
template
struct basic_ostream
{
basic_ostream& operator<<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80664
--- Comment #5 from Andrzej Krzemienski ---
Thank you for pointing this out. Can anything be done to fix this PR 66139? It
has status "NEW" but is in fact quite old. In the comments above, you have
provided some substantial analysis of the source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akrzemi1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80664
--- Comment #3 from d25fe0be@ ---
Is this related to PR 66139?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80662
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com |ville at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79665
--- Comment #18 from tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Mon May 8 09:45:46 2017
New Revision: 247734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-08 Tamar Christina
PR middle-end/7966
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
Bug ID: 80666
Summary: character length parameter fails if declaration order
incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80665
--- Comment #1 from abenkhadra ---
A small clarification: the segfault happens upon executing the produced binary
and not in g++ itself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80648
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Keith Thompson from comment #6)
> (I question the policy of implementing DRs that have not been approved
> by the committee. As I understand it, the existence of a DR merely means
> that *someo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80665
Bug ID: 80665
Summary: dynamic cast on nullptr leads to segfault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> Fixed on trunk. It doesn't look like it's a regression, but maybe we want
> to backport anyway?
We usually backport wrong-code fixes to active branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> It doesn't look like it's a regression, but maybe we want to backport anyway?
Would be great. It's wrong code after all, and the fix appears to be low
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80664
--- Comment #1 from Andrzej Krzemienski ---
This happens on all C++11 GCC versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80664
Bug ID: 80664
Summary: Destructor not called upon exception while
initializing a vector
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80577
--- Comment #3 from drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to drepper.fsp+r...@gmail.com from comment #2)
> final isn't necessary in this case. An object is used and the type is known.
Ignore this comment, wrong bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80577
--- Comment #2 from drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com ---
final isn't necessary in this case. An object is used and the type is known.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80660
--- Comment #2 from drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com ---
final shouldn't be needed in this case. It's an object that is used, the type
is known.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80655
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
sprintf pass doesn't run close to VRP so the optimization opportunity could
have been exposed later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
