https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Lundin ---
Call it what you will, either way there is nothing here that's "so large that
it is unsigned". The main point is that the diagnostic message is wrong.
typeof(18446744073709551615) x = -1;
Gives a 128 bit in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108523
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108523
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f6d05e9ad858b59b824f57d09400adcb2c5e4ad
commit r13-5378-g1f6d05e9ad858b59b824f57d09400adcb2c5e4ad
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108551
Bug ID: 108551
Summary: gcc/m2/gm2-libs-pim/Termbase.mod:128:1: error: control
reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108523
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #15)
> > On Jan 25, 2023, at 11:12 AM, siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> The first is handled by the function just fine,
> >>
> >> No, even the first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512
--- Comment #9 from Guo Youtao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Yes please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
Bug ID: 108550
Summary: the type 'const auto' of 'constexpr' variable is not
literal
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I found that the attached patch does not work. At the point of assertion many
of the other functions to free memory have null pointers which leads to
segfaults all along the way.
The following approach app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Also, for it to become an extended integer type, it would be necessary to
define integer constant suffixes and implement printf / scanf support in
the library, because is now required to p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108549
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am also seeing the same error with gcc 11. r11-10483-g23a9270c999a24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108531
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
My only real addition to my previous comments in the referenced glibc bug
report is that, given we defined _Float32 which has the same "not promoted
at language level in variable arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108135
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108135
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108549
Bug ID: 108549
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/pr107554.c fails for 32 bits
after r12-9062-gca8b8191983d1a
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108548
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108548
Bug ID: 108548
Summary: gcc asm goto with outputs not implicitly volatile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108544
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101832
--- Comment #8 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> This is intentional, if you embed an aggregate with flex array into another
> struct and ask not to cross the field boundaries (i.e. bos1), then the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #17 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #16)
> > We might add a new utility routine to determine whether a ref to a struct or
> > union have flexible array?
>
> It will be useful for __bos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108544
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I played a little and found a variation of testcase pr96102.f90
that was silently accepted but is rejected by Intel, NAG, Cray, NVidia:
module m
type mytype
integer :: i
end type
type(m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #16 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #15)
> Since S2.flex is not an “array_ref”, it’s correct for
> array_ref_fleixble_size_p to return false for it, I think.
> We might add a new utility routine to de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108544
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108528
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108528
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 07:44:05PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Steve, I'm going to commit your patch.
>
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Summary|ice in decompos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108528
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fb9da3d38513d320bfea72050f7a59688595e0b
commit r13-5374-g9fb9da3d38513d320bfea72050f7a59688595e0b
Author: Steve Kargl
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108528
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
--- Comment #11 from User99627 ---
I can also tell the bug occurs regardless of the -flto flag is present or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108527
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.5.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108543
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108543
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r255404.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108547
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect it is trying to simplifying:
((NOT (us_8.1_2 != 0)))
OR ((func_7_ptr_13.8_9 != 0) AND (_8 != 0) AND (func_7_ptr_13.8_9 & 1)
AND (NOT (_49 != 0)) AND (NOT (prephitmp_37 != 0)))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108543
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
struct _Bit_iterator_base {
long _M_p;
friend bool operator<(_Bit_iterator_base __x, _Bit_iterator_base __y) {
return &__x._M_p - &__y._M_p;
}
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108547
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a slightly better testcase that does not depend on implicit conversion
from a function pointer to an integer.
int li_4, li_5, us_8;
unsigned char func_7_ptr_13, func_7_uc_14;
long t;
int func_7_uc_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
User99627 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||user99627 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #10 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100962
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108547
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the full backtrace:
0xc7c58b wi::int_traits >
>::decompose(long*, unsigned int, generic_wide_int > const&)
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/wide-int.h:984
0xc7c7a4 wide_int_ref_storage:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108543
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102760
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> > I see very similar for this legal C code:
>
> That seems like a different issue, please file it seperately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108547
Bug ID: 108547
Summary: ice in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 for -O2 with -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99435
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102760
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> I see very similar for this legal C code:
That seems like a different issue, please file it seperately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102760
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108531
--- Comment #5 from Keith Thompson ---
FYI, I've sent an email to the C standard editors (the addresses at
the top of the N3054 draft) suggesting that imaginary number support
should be optional even if __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ and
__STDC_IEC_60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108546
Bug ID: 108546
Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_1, at
expr.cc:10910
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108545
Bug ID: 108545
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in install_var_field, at
omp-low.cc:799
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Given that the hard-float ABI essentially requires V4SF as a type, it might be
better to consider this mode supported unconditionally in this case, and
although that might make the compiler try some point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108544
Bug ID: 108544
Summary: ICE in check_host_association, at
fortran/resolve.cc:6135
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108543
Bug ID: 108543
Summary: ICE in build_call_expr_loc_array, at tree.cc:10686
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108542
Bug ID: 108542
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in instantiate_type, at
cp/class.cc:8833
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
If the testcase is built with -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve.fp then the useless
stack adjustments go away. I think that's because V4SFmode is not a supported
vector mode for integer MVE - see arm_vector_mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108507
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108524
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108538
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> It seems like you might be expecting more from -fpermissive than it actually
> provides. It only affects a very limited set of diagnostics, and isn't a
> genera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108523
--- Comment #16 from David Binderman ---
cvise produces:
int g_149, g_167, g_481;
main() {
int *l_1478 = &g_149;
*l_1478 ^= g_167;
lbl_1481:
for (;;) {
g_481 = 1;
for (; g_481; g_481 += 1) {
g_167 ^= *l_1478;
if (g_149
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512
--- Comment #7 from Guo Youtao ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Guo Youtao from comment #5)
> > This bug can still be triggered in gcc-11 and gcc-12.
>
> That is unrelated bug. Most likely an issue with pointer to m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108523
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Fixed, but I'll see if somebody comes up with a reduced testcase.
I have a reduction running with cvise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Guo Youtao from comment #5)
> This bug can still be triggered in gcc-11 and gcc-12.
That is unrelated bug. Most likely an issue with pointer to member functions
which is might have some known is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108541
Bug ID: 108541
Summary: ASAN since GCC 9 missed a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #15 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Jan 25, 2023, at 11:12 AM, siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>>
>>> The first is handled by the function just fine,
>>
>> No, even the first case is not recognized by the current
>> “array_ref_flexi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108519
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
We diverge in sched1 due to extra calls to advance_one_cycle when scheduling a
BB that is empty apart from one debug insn. The following patch adds a hexdump
of automaton state to make the problem eviden
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #14 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #13)
> >
> > The first is handled by the function just fine,
>
> No, even the first case is not recognized by the current
> “array_ref_flexible_size_p”, it’s not b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108540
Bug ID: 108540
Summary: [13 Regression] Frange miscompilation of ruby since
r13-3261
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102343
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102343
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80cf2c5e8f496bed9c6facf55f9ae31d0d90fd28
commit r13-5373-g80cf2c5e8f496bed9c6facf55f9ae31d0d90fd28
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80cf2c5e8f496bed9c6facf55f9ae31d0d90fd28
commit r13-5373-g80cf2c5e8f496bed9c6facf55f9ae31d0d90fd28
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #13 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Jan 25, 2023, at 2:32 AM, rguenther at suse dot de
> wrote:
>>
>> A little confused here:
>>when the structure with a trailing flexible-array member is a middle
>> field of
>>an outer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107424
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
> now filed as PR middle-end/108459.
This has been fixed to mainline. Cross ref: also about collapsed loops but
otherwise unrelated: PR middle-end/108435 (loop-var with function nesting
issue)
* * *
Pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-25
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f593bfa059fbd2c145d8dd2bae4860959e9e55fe
commit r12-9067-gf593bfa059fbd2c145d8dd2bae4860959e9e55fe
Author: Christophe Ly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7f8b1c54bd054d214a73d4b534d599365f8658b
commit r11-10485-gd7f8b1c54bd054d214a73d4b534d599365f8658b
Author: Christophe L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105549
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fea013065580084578b1b78d8f727c0323f2a9a0
commit r10-11174-gfea013065580084578b1b78d8f727c0323f2a9a0
Author: Christophe L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108525
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d4c00cdaccc3decd07740e817387ce844ef3ac9
commit r13-5372-g9d4c00cdaccc3decd07740e817387ce844ef3ac9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108503
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54341&action=edit
gcc13-pr108503.patch
This hack works around it, by pretending the VAR_DECLs don't have
DECL_VALUE_EXPR between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108539
--- Comment #1 from arheik at dnainternet dot net ---
Reproduced with these:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/11/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none:amdgcn-amdhsa
OFFLOAD_TARGET_DEFA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108539
Bug ID: 108539
Summary: Wrong register usage for -m16 -masm=intel -march=i386
on asm volatile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104234
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #12 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > GCC considered this as a flex-array.
>
> do you mean for the following example:
>
> typedef struct {
> char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108523
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed, but I'll see if somebody comes up with a reduced testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108523
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c29d85359add807200a1a851026b4e4a9d6b714c
commit r13-5348-gc29d85359add807200a1a851026b4e4a9d6b714c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108538
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> It depends on the selected C++ standard. C++11 does not allow narrowing
> conversions unconditionally.
Yes, I am not disputing that.
But I used -fpermissive mo
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
