https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44882
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #20)
>
> ...so does this bug still need to be marked as WAITING then?
Update: guess not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49566
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91570
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91830
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 91830, which changed state.
Bug 91830 Summary: [10 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds on strcpy into a member
of a subobject compiling binutils
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91830
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91830
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Sep 21 22:32:59 2019
New Revision: 276022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91830 - Bogus -Warray-bounds on strcpy into a member
of a su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30277
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Sep 21 21:54:38 2019
New Revision: 276021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/30277
* g++.dg/expr/bitfield14.C (struct S): Use si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83452
dimitar.yordanov at sap dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimitar.yordanov at sap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78237
Mike Crowe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mac at mcrowe dot com
--- Comment #1 from M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91844
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
As a consequence, this program will become invalid:
int &f (const int *&&);
void
fn (int *p)
{
const int *&&r = p;
f (p);
}
With this DR, "const int *" and "int *" are reference-related, and 5.4.4. say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91844
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91854
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 46908
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46908&action=edit
bug-min-against-8.3.0.c
While original sample fails both against 8.3.0 and 9.2.0 this distilled example
fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91269
--- Comment #19 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #18)
> > Here is a bug-lz4-8.3.0.c that exposes suspiciously similar failure on
> > sparc64 gcc-8.3.0 on lz4-1.8.3 package:
>
> Please open a new PR with the app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91854
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91854
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 46907
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46907&action=edit
bug.orig.c
bug.orig.c is a selfcontained example.
"{standard input}:10401: Error: Illegal operands" point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91854
Bug ID: 91854
Summary: gcc-8.3.0 generates invalid assembly on lz4-1.8.3:
Assembler messages: Error: Illegal operands
(-mcpu=niagara4 -fPIC)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91836
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2019-09-20 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
Bug ID: 91853
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_modify_expr, at
gimplify.c:5902 since r275982
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91837
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Cooke ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Daniel Cooke from comment #3)
> > I tried replicating the issue on a CentOS machine (AWS EC2) with the exact
> > same CPU and got the correct output. Howeve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91841
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91269
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Here is a bug-lz4-8.3.0.c that exposes suspiciously similar failure on
> sparc64 gcc-8.3.0 on lz4-1.8.3 package:
Please open a new PR with the appropriate information, this one is closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91852
Bug ID: 91852
Summary: Compile the code with -O0 is slower than with
-O1/-O2/-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91588
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Sep 21 08:35:17 2019
New Revision: 276016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-21 Paul Thomas
Backport from mainline
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91269
--- Comment #17 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 46906
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46906&action=edit
bug-lz4-8.3.0.c
Here is a bug-lz4-8.3.0.c that exposes suspiciously similar failure on sparc64
gcc-8.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91269
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I believe the Known to work field is wrong and gcc-8.3.0 has this bug as
> well.
No, the field is correct and you're wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91851
Bug ID: 91851
Summary: [m68k] Convert the backend to MODE_CC so it can be
kept in future releases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
28 matches
Mail list logo
