https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #13 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
---
Also note that also already does the following:
/*
* Compatibility with compilers and environments that don't support compiler
* feature checking function-like macros.
*/
#ifndef __has_buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeremyhu at macports dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
--- Comment #13 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
---
1. clang honors $SDKROOT from the environment if it is not passed via -isysroot
on the command line. That's all gcc needs to do, and then users running 'xcrun
gcc' would ge this behavior automa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243
Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeremyhu at macports dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91980
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the problem is the define for complex is in a system header which
causes the error not to happen due to -Wno-system-headers being the default.
This is a known issue in newer versions of GCC. There mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #7)
> (In reply to Maksymilian Arciemowicz from comment #6)
> > > Do you have any other testcases?
> >
> > for trunk? maybe you have to use ::regex_match
>
> std::regex_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91980
Bug ID: 91980
Summary: No diagnostic for type "complex"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91979
Bug ID: 91979
Summary: Incorrect mangling for non-template-argument nullptr
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91978
Bug ID: 91978
Summary: Unresolved associate target containing defined
operation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|build |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:25:15PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
>
> --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91976
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 2 22:33:39 2019
New Revision: 276495
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/91976
* expr.c (emit_block_move_hints)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91973
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #5)
> We're talking about the sequence of pp-tokens in the expansion of bar(foo,
> addr), which is (foo) (addr), where foo is followed by ), not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91973
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
We're talking about the sequence of pp-tokens in the expansion of bar(foo,
addr), which is (foo) (addr), where foo is followed by ), not about the
definition.
Please take any further quest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91961
--- Comment #4 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Thanks for the report. I noticed we had
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38653 on file, so I cc'ed Clang folks who
might have some thoughts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Oct 2 22:00:42 2019
New Revision: 276491
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276491&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80936 - bcmp, bcopy, and bzero not declared nonnull
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91973
--- Comment #4 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
> Macro replacement for function-like macros is defined in C17 6.10.3.
> Note in paragraph 10 the words "the function-like macro name follow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91977
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91977
Bug ID: 91977
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on memcpy into a pointer
plus offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88814
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
--- Comment #4 from Barry Revzin ---
Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear, this is with -std=c++17.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27221
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90834
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
other than the desire to locate /usr/local/include in some automatic way, is
this still a current issue?
I've built (with the workaround for missing __has_x()) on 10.14 using the
10.15 XC11.0 command line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
I'm testing regularly on macOS 10.14 (darwin18) - which I assume is the version
you meant?
Also on 8.3 and 9.2 .. (the results are posted to @testresults).
There was a PCH fixed (but that only manifested wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91087
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91973
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Macro replacement for function-like macros is defined in C17 6.10.3.
Note in paragraph 10 the words "the function-like macro name followed by a
( as the next preprocessing token". In your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The only case where the newly built GCC should be overridden is the
Canadian cross case, and while that does use a pre-installed tool from the
PATH, it's best to use "make all-host" in tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91973
--- Comment #2 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #1)
> This is not a bug in GCC, it's how the preprocessor is defined to work.
So, this is an user error? is there any C language rules on this?
why icc wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #19 from Stas Sergeev ---
OK, but the setup when you want to override
the newly-built gcc, is also needed. Like, when
you want to build the "destdir" gcc with the one
installed directly into prefix (and therefore
working fine on host)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91973
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The libgcc2.c functions for conversions that get used by default on most
architectures should respect the rounding mode if the underlying
single-word-to-floating-point instruction does so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91976
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think
--- gcc/expr.c.jj 2019-10-02 16:35:20.977451346 +0200
+++ gcc/expr.c 2019-10-02 21:47:54.900724874 +0200
@@ -1624,16 +1624,18 @@ emit_block_move_hints (rtx x, rtx y, rtx
set_mem_size (y,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #18 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
No, --with-build-time-tools definitely should not override newly built
tools.
For example, in some bootstrap configurations you have to build GCC more
than once. If you're also installin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just to make sure, you are using -std=c++17 or -std=gnu++17 (or
-fstrong-eval-order)? Because it is not obvious from this report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91976
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
FAIL: configure --enable-checking=yes,rtl --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--disable-multilib
PASS: configure --enable-checking=yes --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--disable-multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91976
Bug ID: 91976
Summary: [10 regression] RTL check: expected code 'const_int',
have 'reg' in emit_block_move_hints, at expr.c:1627
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91975
Bug ID: 91975
Summary: worse code for small array copy using pointer
arithmetic than array indexing
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91965
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> What exact transformation do you want? Canonicalize the constant C to
> something like C % (1 << (bitsize - N))?
I'm thinking (C << N) >>> N where '>>>' is sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90839
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:10:48PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> You're right, Steve, the problem lies in the simplification
> of the implied DO loop (the error message is a catch-all
> which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
C++17 does change this rule. expr.call/8:
The postfix-expression is sequenced before each expression in the
expression-list and any default argument. The initialization of a parameter,
including every associa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91965
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Do we want to handle this early on via match.pd? Perhaps also applies to
> simplifying (a +- C) << N.
What exact transformation do you want? Canonicalize the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I dont think this is well defined. A call and its arguments are not sequence
points. Yes there is a sequence point between the assignment and 0 but nothing
else. Note c++17 does change the rules and I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91784
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Oct 2 17:17:55 2019
New Revision: 276474
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276474&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91784
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #2)
> Don't you need #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS?
yes, for iso c conformance you need it, but gcc does not
handle it anyway, instead it requires -frounding-math.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91816
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91785
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Oct 2 17:09:45 2019
New Revision: 276473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276473&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91785
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91965
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
On a related thought, I wonder if we can canonicalize (x << CST) to (x * CST')
where CST' is 1<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91942
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Oct 2 17:04:57 2019
New Revision: 276472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276472&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91943
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Oct 2 17:01:30 2019
New Revision: 276471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91943
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Don't you need #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89012
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #9)
> I think it's actually just a matter of removing the patterns for generating
> bsrf, but I may be mistaken. Generating jsr should be what happens "by
> default" in some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #1 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
floating-point exceptions are also missing for the same reason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974
Bug ID: 91974
Summary: function not sequenced before function argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90839
Dmitrij Pochepko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dpochepk at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91973
Bug ID: 91973
Summary: gcc failed for Multiple level macro expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 07:07:08AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:03:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > (In reply to Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
Bug ID: 91972
Summary: Bootstrap should use -Wmissing-declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91971
Bug ID: 91971
Summary: Profile directory concatenated with object file path
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
Bug ID: 91970
Summary: arm: 64bit int to double conversion does not respect
rounding mode
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91969
Bug ID: 91969
Summary: Compiling testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr85421.C with
-fdump-ipa-inline ICEs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91653
Liu Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #5 from Li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91968
Bug ID: 91968
Summary: DW_AT_low_pc missing for DW_TAG_label with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] |[7/8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|cesar at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #17 from Stas Sergeev ---
Created attachment 46991
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46991&action=edit
the fix
Attached is the patch that I think is correct.
It also seems to work properly, i.e. the full
build proc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Oct 2 15:37:12 2019
New Revision: 276466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ifcvt: improve cost estimation (PR 87047)
PR rtl-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91842
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91842
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Oct 2 15:09:37 2019
New Revision: 276465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276465&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/91842] Skip gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-19.c on power
2019-10-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91967
--- Comment #1 from bob wilkinson ---
Created attachment 46990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46990&action=edit
output of g++ with save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91967
Bug ID: 91967
Summary: gtest from google generates incorrect assembly code on
x86 solaris
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46987|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91966
Bug ID: 91966
Summary: pack expansion for Cartesian product breaks if
certain indirections are involved
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:03:21PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > But is it valid fortran?
>
> Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91963
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
--- Comment #13 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
You can remove my_array from the test case. I put there only to show that using
it instead of std::array allows to workaround the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Oct 2 13:22:37 2019
New Revision: 276458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-02 Bernd Edlinger
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91927
--- Comment #5 from Guillaume ---
I think I found a work-around for the time being.
If you define your packed structs with the 'volatile' qualifier, the bug
doesn't seem to show up. May not be completely ideal, but it appears to work,
and the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91964
--- Comment #7 from Jörg Richter ---
Yes, I changed our code already to
if( C != Enum() )
But I still think that an explicit cast should always silence this warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91964
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jörg Richter from comment #5)
> There needs to be at least a way to suppress the warning with a cast
> or some other construct (not pragma).
That is simple: if ( C != A ) ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Thanks! That fixes the benchmark build (and the rest of SPEC builds fine with
> -flto). It also bootstraps and tests on aarch64-none-linux-gnu fine.
Thanks! My testing concluded independently so I went ahead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Oct 2 12:41:36 2019
New Revision: 276454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91222
* ipa-devirt.c (warn_types_mismatch): Fix co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91965
Bug ID: 91965
Summary: missing simplification for (C - a) << N
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Huh, I thought I'd already fixed this a while ago.
I was thinking of Bug 85632 which is different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Fregl from comment #3)
> It seems this is firm limitation.
It's a bug, you just have to wait for it to be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #3 from Fregl ---
In out product we use 32 bit toolchain, but work with large files.
So there is only solution to use direct stat call insted fs::file_size?
It seems this is firm limitation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #26 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #25)
> > --- Comment #24 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > Thanks. Unfortunately I still see the ICE building 507.cactuBSSN_r on
> > aarch64
> > wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630
--- Comment #11 from Zavadovsky Yan ---
>We can set it as a default behavior for all FPU-capable SH4 variants,
>but that will pessimize it for everything.
>The other option is to enable this only for your specific CPU (ST-40),
>which would req
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91964
--- Comment #5 from Jörg Richter ---
There needs to be at least a way to suppress the warning with a cast
or some other construct (not pragma).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> > libstdc++ seems to lack AC_SYS_LARGEFILE in configury and thus uses
> > fopen/open
> > in fstream and friends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> libstdc++ seems to lack AC_SYS_LARGEFILE in configury and thus uses
> fopen/open
> in fstream and friends that can fail not only because of large files but
> f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[9/10 regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 2 10:54:10 2019
New Revision: 276448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-02 Richard Biener
PR c++/91606
* decl.c (b
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
