https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sat Nov 23 06:33:59 2019
New Revision: 278639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92365
2019-11-22 Bernd Edlinger
PR c++/92365
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92637
Bug ID: 92637
Summary: runtime issue with -ftree-coalesce-vars
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92631
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79716
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #13)
> Author: msebor
> Date: Tue Jul 9 18:32:49 2019
> New Revision: 273311
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273311&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR c++/61339 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90724
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85861
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10)
> He's at Microsoft and no longer involved in GCC development.
He came to Cauldron this year though...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92636
Bug ID: 92636
Summary: out-of-class definition of member template of
specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I Know there has been discussion about &a->f not being a NULL pointer even
> but I cannot find it right now.
Finally found it: PR30368 comment #3:
The C standar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg00076.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #7)
> Here's another example, a typical offsetof.
>
> #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) ((unsigned long) &((TYPE *)0)->MEMBER)
That can never be a correct offsetof as that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
Here's another example, a typical offsetof.
#define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) ((unsigned long) &((TYPE *)0)->MEMBER)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Dup of bug 80797.
What I mean by that is the regression is not a regression but rather a specific
change introduced in GCC 7 and that is the PR which was asking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> No those are still officially considered a referencing.
>
> In fact all three cases:
> &p->field does not dereference p, just as &*p and &p[i] do not.
>
> Should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Nov 22 23:48:25 2019
New Revision: 278635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88337 - P1327R1: Allow polymorphic typeid in constexpr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92635
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Inline ASM is not ideal since dfp classification instructions targets CRs.
If the PowerPC had the "Flag Output" inline-asm extension like x86 has:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Extended-Asm.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92635
Bug ID: 92635
Summary: __builtin_finited{32,64,128} should inline
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
No those are still officially considered a referencing.
In fact all three cases:
&p->field does not dereference p, just as &*p and &p[i] do not.
Should be considered a deference even though the deference d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
Bug ID: 92634
Summary: [gcc-8 regression] -fsanitize=undefined erroneous null
pointer check
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92629
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=92633
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] gcc-9.1.0 |[9 Regression] gcc-9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92458
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92458, which changed state.
Bug 92458 Summary: Constraints do not work with precompiled headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92458
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92629
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 22 21:45:27 2019
New Revision: 278634
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278634&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/90677
* c-common.h (identifier_global_tag): Declare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92633
Bug ID: 92633
Summary: [concepts] constrained lambda with placehoder syntax
getting wrong substitution
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92632
Bug ID: 92632
Summary: Calculix regression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92631
Bug ID: 92631
Summary: Warnings partly caused by system headers are broken
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92458
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 22 21:38:44 2019
New Revision: 278633
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278633&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92458
* tree-hash-traits.h (tree_decl_hash, tree_ss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
> Something like the following fixes the testcase, but leads to regressions
> elsewhere in the testsuite (e.g. direct_io_{9,10}.f):
You've found the right spot, I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92630
Bug ID: 92630
Summary: missing -Wrestrict with attribute access and restrict
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92627
--- Comment #4 from George R. Goffe ---
Hi,
Pleas disregard this bug. It's a UFU (User Foul Up). The message CLEARLY says
mpfr >= 3.1.0. I have mpfr 3.0 1. Can you spell dyslexia?
Sorry for the misfire.
Best regards,
George...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #19 from Daniel Marjamäki ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> (In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #12)
> > So, how would you fix the warning for `f`? Many programmers would "fix" it
> > with a cast.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91615
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92629
Bug ID: 92629
Summary: internal compiler error: in convert_mpz_to_unsigned,
at fortran/simplify.c:173
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91612
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91613
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91615
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589
Matthijs Kooijman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijs at stdin dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90517
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91613
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91832
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91105
Bug 91105 depends on bug 91001, which changed state.
Bug 91001 Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2310
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91001
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90840
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 22 18:17:04 2019
New Revision: 278626
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278626&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92618
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (v_info):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #17)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> > A much better fix is
> >
> > void f1(long s, unsigned long u) { unsigned long su = s; if (su == u)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90480
--- Comment #3 from Luke Dalessandro ---
Created attachment 47336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47336&action=edit
Testcast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90480
--- Comment #2 from Luke Dalessandro ---
I'm hitting this with the following similar, but different snippet. Maybe it
will help with this.
#include
struct Foo {
int operator()(int i) {
return 0;
}
template
auto opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Bug 31279 depends on bug 83859, which changed state.
Bug 83859 Summary: Please add new attribute which will establish relation
between parameters for buffer and its size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Nov 22 17:14:17 2019
New Revision: 278624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83859 - attributes to associate pointer arguments and sizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 92501, which changed state.
Bug 92501 Summary: strncmp with constant unterminated arrays not folded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92501
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92501
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88226
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88226
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Nov 22 16:47:22 2019
New Revision: 278623
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278623&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/88226 - missing warning on fprintf, fputs, and puts with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92501
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Nov 22 16:39:37 2019
New Revision: 278621
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278621&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92501 - strncmp with constant unterminated arrays not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92620
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92109
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
After talking to Honza, I have proposed a different patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg02205.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91956
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg02203.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> A much better fix is
>
> void f1(long s, unsigned long u) { unsigned long su = s; if (su == u) g(); }
But what if s is some arbitrary integer type, e.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92625
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92625
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91355
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With the above changes, the bug is now latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92610
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91665
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #13)
> > Yes. You should not use casts, except in some very specific cases, and
> > most of the uses you see "in the wild" are a bad idea. Sometimes I wonder
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #12)
> So, how would you fix the warning for `f`? Many programmers would "fix" it
> with a cast.
>
> Assuming that `s` and `u` can have arbitrary values, here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22395
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to marc from comment #8)
> I don't think Effective C++ is the benchmark any more
I've been trying to say that for years and people keep insisting they want
warnings based on advice from the late
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92615
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47334
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47334&action=edit
gcc10-pr92615.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22395
--- Comment #8 from marc at kdab dot com ---
I don't think Effective C++ is the benchmark any more, so water under bridges
that have already burned, but fwiw: contrary to C.127 these days, I learned
this rule as "A base class's destructor should b
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
