https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118539
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118466
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118458
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118371
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
So in other words, any bugs about diagnostics resulting from the default
standard now being -std=gnu23 would get put here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118379
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29593
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118349
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #0)
> > For example, one could do -Wtemplate-depth=17
> > -ftemplate-depth=1024 to get a warning when the pre-C++11 lim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118349
Bug ID: 118349
Summary: Suggestion for new warning: -Wtemplate-depth= (like
-ftemplate-depth= but a warning instead of an error)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118010
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118300
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|False malloc leak warning |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118223
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118159
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116871
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117865
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109214
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116989
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117981
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98142
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> What kind of change could make it the default? It would be non-conforming,
> so can't just be the default.
>
> Do you mean a -fclosed-enums flag that implie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98142
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112840
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61759
--- Comment #19 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #18)
> This is the same bug?
>
> ```
> during GIMPLE pass: eh
> /opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_PPCSnowLeopardPorts_aqua_barrier/barrier/
> work/barrier-2.4.0/src
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117881
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78829
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
Worth revisiting now that the default C standard is changing again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117869
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117857
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
I think just ensuring that -D__DARWIN_UNIX03=1 is always passed to the
preprocessor ought to be enough...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19501
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> I am not sure if this needed any more since now () means the same as (void)
> with C23 and GCC defaults to C23 ...
Some people may still wish to compile for earl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117834
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117815
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82922
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #12)
> GCC lacks an equivalent for Clang's -Wdeprecated-non-prototype, right?
This has been added for GCC 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99950
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Possibly related texinfo mail:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2024-11/msg00069.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117677
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117629
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/87a5f3w15a@mid.deneb.enyo.de/
>
> I wasn't interested in the idea before but it may be valuable. It would be
> better if we'd h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103459
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95445
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70800
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
Does someone want to bisect to find when exactly the fix arrived, or should we
just close this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40960
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/ossf/wg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109310
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117407
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117401
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> That doesn't really matter. Anybody who used the option in GCC 13/14 got
> that deprecation message.
They might not have seen it, though, as it is easy for war
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117401
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117396
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, documentation
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111900
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77723
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101125
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93677
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80653
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37820
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to brian from comment #1)
> To list predefined macros, use -dM with an empty input file, e.g. "gcc
> -dM -E -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98021
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117263
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117221
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113143
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #17)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #15)
> > This is one of the things blocking bug 46986, isn't it?
>
> ucontext is supported on macOS, AFAIK.
Only on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113143
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117150
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117156
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 47170, which changed state.
Bug 47170 Summary: [cppcheck][PATCH] found resource leaks in
gcc/intl/localealias.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47170
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49564
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79306
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on valid code |ICE on valid code building
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54050
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|chaining|Add support for chaining of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87832
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> possibly related to bug 60972
...and, from the other direction, bug 68160 and bug 36566
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43301
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> we've got an idea that I just need to test
(well, either I, or someone else, I guess...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108310
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|egallager at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to simon from comment #9)
> Created attachment 56140 [details]
> C demonstrator
>
> As noted in comment 8, the C compiler doesn’t have a problem with
> finding a file with a combining filename wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77502
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Antoni from comment #5)
> I believe so, but there might always be cases that we need to fix.
> Why do you ask? Did you get any issue?
I was just wondering if I could close it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #3)
> The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8415bceea9d3ca86adc00ae8ad92deaec0457dd1
>
> commit r14-7117-g8415bceea9d3ca86adc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117028
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116951
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116920
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112297
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #5)
> The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0eb6f8874047f7e7f13027aaac14d3de276c5e69
>
> commit r12-10370-g0eb6f88
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116792
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116794
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-21
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> The problem is that it's riscv (so 11 is prehistoric in that context) and
> it's also a huge generated file.
>
> tbh, I suspect if you re-run the failing command, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
well, I mean, it *ought* to be possible to bootstrap with GCC 11 as the host
compiler, right? The "transition to C++14" thread on the mailing lists was just
talking about raising the requirement for the host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
Bug ID: 116774
Summary: ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
I'm hearing this came up at Cauldron this year... I wasn't there, so could
somebody who was summarize in this bug report for us?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116730
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116744
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96842
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116642
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54140
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46457
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81665
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
This patch for bug 46457 looks kind of related:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/662214.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #34 from Eric Gallager ---
Yeah I think GCC should support the __attribute__ style syntax for this
attribute, too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110522
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116021
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
Update: I finally managed to bootstrap using one of Simon Wright's releases:
https://github.com/simonjwright/distributing-gcc/releases
I still think there might be a bug in the build system somewhere leadin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116481
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80060
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Another example: off_t is sometimes defined as long long, and sometimes as just
long, but in each case sizeof(off_t) == 8, so it shouldn't really matter
whether you use "ll" or just "l" as the modifier for it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116438
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> In my experience a backtrace is not sufficient to debug compiler issues.
It might not be sufficient on its own, but it'd at least be an improvement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116438
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109565
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
1 - 100 of 876 matches
Mail list logo