Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Target Milestone: ---
In the following example, the qualifier should be dropped according
to 6.5.15.1 "the type of an assignment expression is the type
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98029
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97702
--- Comment #6 from Martin Uecker ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=32934a4f45a72144cdcd0712cc294fe88c36f13d
Author Martin Uecker
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 06:21:40 + (07:21 +0100)
commit 32934a4f45a72144cdcd0712cc294fe88c36f1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97702
--- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker ---
Thank you for the explanation.
Interestingly, from the following list, the only example that
removes the cast is the last one (which seems correct
as ISO C specifies casts to produce a value with the
unquali
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Target Milestone: ---
The following code
const int x = 0;
typeof(0, x) y = 0;
y = x;
yields an error because '(0, x)' and then 'y'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159
--- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker ---
Clang produces a call to __atomic_load.
Also here is a godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/39PE1G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159
--- Comment #1 from Martin Uecker ---
On x86-64 the following struct has alignment 4 but gcc
creates a single mov instruction which according to my
understanding may fail to be atomic when it crosses a
cache line boundary.
Documentation seem
Priority: P3
Component: translation
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93949
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 46536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46536&action=edit
reduced test cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86884
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046
--- Comment #5 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> If you want aggregate with size 1 and isn't used to store information, use
> typedef struct { char : 1; } zero;
> instead.
Yes, thank you.
But for my understand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046
--- Comment #3 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. I think the C language doesn't specify this since zero-sized
> arrays are a GNU extension and thus in C no zero-sized types/decls exist?
>
> So no
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43246
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43246&action=edit
test case
With newer versions of gcc (tested: 6.3.0 and rec
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37269
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37269&action=edit
test case
Trying to get openmp to make a private copy of an array pass
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: uecker at eecs dot berkeley.edu
Created attachment 34309
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34309&action=edit
minimized test case
xgcc (GCC) 5.0.0 20141221 (exper
17 matches
Mail list logo
