https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85938
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85938
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Jun 3 05:23:59 2018
New Revision: 261125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85938
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||subscribe at teskor dot de
--- Comment #
20180602 (experimental) [trunk revision 261116] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
$
$
$ gcctk -O2 small.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted (core dumped)
$
-
int printf (const char *, ...);
struct
{
int a:2;
int b:9;
} c = { -1, 0 };
int d, e;
void f ()
{
printf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85761
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Jun 3 01:01:47 2018
New Revision: 261121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85761 - ICE with ill-formed use of const outer variable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85996
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 44225
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44225&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180602 (experimental) [trunk revision 261116
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85996
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65231
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64549
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65231
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64549
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59184
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> I can't find anywhere a guarantee that realloc doesn't move stuff when the
> new size is smaller than the old.
In practice it does not.
> What would be the poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For r0_to_imax_1 the following works for me:
--- gcc/fold-const.c.jj 2018-05-31 20:53:33.0 +0200
+++ gcc/fold-const.c2018-06-02 18:36:23.795635887 +0200
@@ -5084,6 +5084,35 @@ merge_ranges (int *p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86033
Bug ID: 86033
Summary: Automated reallocation of empty string array fails
with -fcheck=all
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86032
Bug ID: 86032
Summary: non standard copy operator is used for empty class
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86029
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873
--- Comment #6 from Kimon.Hoffmann at lawo dot com ---
Thanks for investigating this report and clarifying the underlying issue!
I was afraid that this was a case of UB, but was misled by the cited standard
section that mentioned lifetime extensi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85938
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615
--- Comment #5 from Peter Cordes ---
Update: https://godbolt.org/g/ZQDY1G
gcc7/8 optimizes this to and / cmp / jb, while gcc6.3 doesn't.
void rangecheck_var(int64_t x, int64_t lim2) {
//lim2 >>= 60;
lim2 &= 0xf; // let the compiler figure
24 matches
Mail list logo
