[Bug libstdc++/120390] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] Request to improve error with private destructor

|Request to improve error|[12/13/14/15/16 Regression] |with private destructor |Request to improve error ||with private destructor Known to work||6.5.0 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- I

[Bug libstdc++/120390] Request to improve error with private destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390 --- Comment #6 from nightstrike --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > (In reply to nightstrike from comment #3) > > I know it isn't a bug, > > You're missing the point. It *is* a bug if the diagnostic is bad. My point > is that it

[Bug libstdc++/120390] Request to improve error with private destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |libstdc++ --- Comment #5 from Jonatha

[Bug c++/120390] Request to improve error with private destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- There's also the source context which should be pretty clear what the assertion was testing when it failed: 188 | static_assert(is_destructible<_Value_type>::value, But I think the best solution

[Bug c++/120390] Request to improve error with private destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390 --- Comment #3 from nightstrike --- I know it isn't a bug, it's bad code that the compiler is correctly erroring out on. My point is that the original error message was spot on perfect in highlighting the issue being that the destructor was pri

[Bug c++/120390] Request to improve error with private destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/120390] Request to improve error with private destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390 --- Comment #1 from nightstrike --- (In reply to nightstrike from comment #0) > either 1) I was missing private:, "missing public:", obviously

[Bug c++/120390] New: Request to improve error with private destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390 Bug ID: 120390 Summary: Request to improve error with private destructor Product: gcc Version: 14.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/120108] Feature request: Command-line option to rename module

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120108 Nathaniel Shead changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/120108] New: Feature request: Command-line option to rename module

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120108 Bug ID: 120108 Summary: Feature request: Command-line option to rename module Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/83161] Feature request: add a builtin for printing structs and classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83161 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 fro

[Bug c/67435] Feature request: Implement align-loops attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67435 --- Comment #12 from Maxim Egorushkin --- gcc-13 and gcc-14 no longer align the last byte of a loop to the last byte of a L1i-cache-line, when compiled with `-march=native -mtune=native` on Zen3 and Zen4 CPUs. I remember gcc-11 or gcc-12 aligni

[Bug c/67435] Feature request: Implement align-loops attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67435 Maxim Egorushkin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maxim.yegorushkin at gmail dot com -

[Bug c++/98641] Feature request: implement pointer alignment builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/116174] [14/15 regression] Alignment request is added before endbr with -fcf-protection=branch since r15-888-gb644126237a1aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174 --- Comment #14 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d275b3748a23aa4b6b821ae3bdf1751010923773 commit r14-11641-gd275b3748a23aa4b6b821ae3bdf1751010923773 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tu

[Bug c/96476] [Request] expose preferred vector width to preprocessor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96476 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > We could seed it from largest integer/float vector-mode that has > an add optab for example if the target does not override it. Though I am curious how that wou

[Bug c++/119747] Request for clearer diagnostic when consecutive commas appear in a function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-04-11 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug c++/119747] Request for clearer diagnostic when consecutive commas appear in a function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Severity|normal

[Bug c++/119747] Request for clearer diagnostic when consecutive commas appear in a function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747 --- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin --- Clang's diagnostic is equivalent to gcc's for this example: :9:5: error: expected expression 9 | CALL_F(1, 2); | ^ :6:40: note: expanded from macro 'CALL_F' 6 | #define CALL_F(v, ...) f

[Bug c++/119747] New: Request for clearer diagnostic when consecutive commas appear in a function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747 Bug ID: 119747 Summary: Request for clearer diagnostic when consecutive commas appear in a function call Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119704] x86: partially disobeyed strategy rep-based request for inlined memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119704 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I don't want to be added to the CC list of x86 mem* because I am just helping triaging bug reports and x86 is not my main target that I care about.

[Bug target/119704] x86: partially disobeyed strategy rep-based request for inlined memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119704 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |target --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinsk

[Bug c/119704] New: x86: partially disobeyed strategy rep-based request for inlined memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119704 Bug ID: 119704 Summary: x86: partially disobeyed strategy rep-based request for inlined memset Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/117809] feature request: attribute malloc but for non-function-return-value return values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117809 --- Comment #2 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de --- Another real-world example is asprintf from GNU libc: int asprintf(char **restrict strp, const char *restrict fmt, ...);

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug fortran/118793] request NAMELIST reports of input errors indicate position of error and show line containing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793 --- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle --- The particular error situation is unique because it is just before we try to match the variable name. This might be sufficient in this case: $ ./a.out At line 18 of file pr118793.f90 Fortran runtime error

[Bug fortran/118793] request NAMELIST reports of input errors indicate position of error and show line containing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/118793] request NAMELIST reports of input errors indicate position of error and show line containing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793 --- Comment #2 from urbanjost at comcast dot net --- I can imagine that different parsing of the input might make this very difficult but might also be very straight-forward so was hoping for the best. With small inputs it is not too bad, but err

[Bug fortran/118793] request NAMELIST reports of input errors indicate position of error and show line containing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-02-16 CC|

[Bug fortran/118793] New: request NAMELIST reports of input errors indicate position of error and show line containing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793 Bug ID: 118793 Summary: request NAMELIST reports of input errors indicate position of error and show line containing error Product: gcc Version: unknown Status

[Bug modula2/117411] Request for documentation to include exception example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug modula2/117411] Request for documentation to include exception example

: Sun Feb 2 16:02:27 2025 + PR modula2/117411 Request for documentation to include exception example This patch adds a new section to the gm2 documentation and new corresponding testcode to the regression testsuite. gcc/ChangeLog: PR modula2/117411 * doc

[Bug modula2/117411] Request for documentation to include exception example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411 --- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley --- Created attachment 60359 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60359&action=edit Proposed patch containing documentation section and new example test code This patch contains an additional sec

[Bug modula2/117411] Request for documentation to include exception example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulle

[Bug analyzer/115662] Feature request: support for linking SARIF files together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115662 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- The top-level object in a .sarif file is a sarifLog, and this contains zero of more runs: https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.1.0/errata01/os/sarif-v2.1.0-errata01-os-complete.html#_Toc141790732 So o

[Bug tree-optimization/118431] [Feature request]: warn about escaped local variables in musttail instead of error-ing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118431 Ken Jin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/118431] [Feature request]: warn about escaped local variables in musttail instead of error-ing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118431 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||21093 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/118431] [Feature request]: warn about escaped local variables in musttail instead of error-ing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118431 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #3 from Andrew

[Bug tree-optimization/118431] [Feature request]: warn about escaped local variables in musttail instead of error-ing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118431 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I rather keep the error since it might allow someone to use musttail incorrectly. Where the variable actually does escape.

[Bug c/118431] [Feature request]: warn about escaped local variables in musttail instead of error-ing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118431 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Can you include preprocessed source for a TU which hits this please? (Give us a standalone reproducer, even if large.)

[Bug c/118431] New: [Feature request]: warn about escaped local variables in musttail instead of error-ing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118431 Bug ID: 118431 Summary: [Feature request]: warn about escaped local variables in musttail instead of error-ing Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/118301] Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #6) > You obviously know better than me :), but I thought c++2a was used for > things that aren't yet fully specified. Here it's about something that is > fully

[Bug c++/118301] Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 --- Comment #6 from Richard Sandiford --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > We already have -std=c++2a for that and it doesn't solve anything. You obviously know better than me :), but I thought c++2a was used for things that aren'

[Bug c++/118301] Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- We already have -std=c++2a for that and it doesn't solve anything.

[Bug c++/118301] Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 Richard Sandiford changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug rtl-optimization/118298] Partial unroll request for outer loop with #pragma GCC unroll is silently ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118298 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||14.2.1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/118298] Partial unroll request for outer loop with #pragma GCC unroll is silently ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118298 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34501ef418da13b361614235077c2162caabab73 commit r15-6652-g34501ef418da13b361614235077c2162caabab73 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug rtl-optimization/118298] Partial unroll request for outer loop with #pragma GCC unroll is silently ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118298 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/118301] Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > As I mentioned documentation is the correct fix and it is already handled. > If folks don't read the documentation that is on them. Doing a preview for > future lang

[Bug c++/118301] Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- It also won't help unless people read the documentation anyway because the experimental status is also about ABI. People may well assume that experimental is OK if it builds fine.

[Bug c++/118301] Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/118301] New: Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301 Bug ID: 118301 Summary: Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit experimental values Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/118298] Partial unroll request for outer loop with #pragma GCC unroll is silently ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118298 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Severity|

[Bug middle-end/118298] Partial unroll request for outer loop with #pragma GCC unroll is silently ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118298 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 60040 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60040&action=edit -Wall -Wextra -Ofast -std=c++20 -march=znver3 -gno-as-loc-support Next time please attach the testcase and not

[Bug other/118298] New: Partial unroll request for outer loop with #pragma GCC unroll is silently ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118298 Bug ID: 118298 Summary: Partial unroll request for outer loop with #pragma GCC unroll is silently ignored Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/95095] Feature request: support -fno-unique-section-names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trashyankes at wp dot pl --- Comment #35 fro

[Bug c/112840] feature request: warn on incorrect tagged union value access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112840 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug c/112840] feature request: warn on incorrect tagged union value access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112840 --- Comment #4 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 116194 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/96628] Feature request: __attribute__((no_builtin("Foo")))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96628 Nick Desaulniers changed: What|Removed |Added CC||keithp at keithp dot com,

[Bug c++/83161] Feature request: add a builtin for printing structs and classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83161 David Heidelberg (okias) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david at ixit dot cz --- Comm

[Bug c/117809] feature request: attribute malloc but for non-function-return-value return values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117809 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|

[Bug c/117810] Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117810 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Not sure what this has to do with constexpr, but allowing expressions should be possible. WG21 is working on contracts to specify pre-. and postprocessing, but I am not sure advanced this is. I

[Bug c/117810] Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117810 --- Comment #2 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de --- Hmm, now that you mention it explicitly... Just like C++ iterators, max does not actually point at the last element in the array but at the first element behind the array. That appears to be more

[Bug c/117810] Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117810 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug c/117810] Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117810 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c/117809] feature request: attribute malloc but for non-function-return-value return values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117809 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c/117810] New: Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117810 Bug ID: 117810 Summary: Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/117809] New: feature request: attribute malloc but for non-function-return-value return values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117809 Bug ID: 117809 Summary: feature request: attribute malloc but for non-function-return-value return values Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/82922] Request: add -Wstrict-prototypes to -Wextra as K&R style is obsolescent

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.

[Bug target/70148] Feature request: allow overriding the SSP canary location

|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Dup. Even though this is an older request, there is more information in the newer bug report. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 81708 ***

[Bug modula2/117411] Request for documentation to include exception example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug modula2/117411] Request for documentation to include exception example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug modula2/117411] New: Request for documentation to include exception example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117411 Bug ID: 117411 Summary: Request for documentation to include exception example Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/110380] [feature request] "-pg-constexpr=coverage-output" emit coverage metrics for constexpr code evaluated at compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110380 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug c/117311] Documentation request: __builtin_frame_address(0) and inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117311 --- Comment #4 from H. Peter Anvin --- Again, any recommendations for a construct (current or future) that *can* be relied upon?

[Bug c/117311] Documentation request: __builtin_frame_address(0) and inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117311 --- Comment #3 from H. Peter Anvin --- It does, in fact, work just fine under -O0, although it will redundantly manifest the frame pointer in a different register (which is not a problem.) Now, it would seem to me that if this *isn't* something

[Bug c/117311] Documentation request: __builtin_frame_address(0) and inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117311 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins

[Bug c/117311] Documentation request: __builtin_frame_address(0) and inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117311 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/117311] New: Documentation request: __builtin_frame_address(0) and inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117311 Bug ID: 117311 Summary: Documentation request: __builtin_frame_address(0) and inline assembly Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug c++/117127] New: Feature request: Warning on useless 'const' in a function declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117127 Bug ID: 117127 Summary: Feature request: Warning on useless 'const' in a function declaration Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/116620] Feature request: type attribute to control storage size of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116620 --- Comment #5 from Stephane --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I am 99% sure we don't want to have this implemented. There has been other > requests about this before but I can't find them. I'm receptive to reasoned arguments, b

[Bug target/116620] Feature request: type attribute to control storage size of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116620 --- Comment #4 from Stephane --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2008-July/178284.html This is indeed the prior mentions I found and the only objection I read in the thread was in https://gcc.gnu.

[Bug target/116620] Feature request: type attribute to control storage size of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116620 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2008-July/178284.html

[Bug target/116620] Feature request: type attribute to control storage size of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116620 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note this is called compressed pointers .

[Bug target/116620] Feature request: type attribute to control storage size of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116620 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug target/116620] New: Feature request: type attribute to control storage size of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116620 Bug ID: 116620 Summary: Feature request: type attribute to control storage size of pointers Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

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

[Bug c++/110881] Feature request: an attribute for enum members that would skip the -Wswitch-enum warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110881 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Target Miles

[Bug target/116174] [14/15 regression] Alignment request is added before endbr with -fcf-protection=branch since r15-888-gb644126237a1aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174 --- Comment #13 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6bb1e257fc414d21bc31faa7ddecbc93a197e3c commit r15-3222-gd6bb1e257fc414d21bc31faa7ddecbc93a197e3c Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue Aug 27 0

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 --- Comment #33 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu --- I don't know what the issues are about whether to support __attribute__, whether the notation is obsolete or nonstandard. If gcc doesn't support this notation, it might lead to just one more

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 --- Comment #32 from andi at firstfloor dot org --- The feature is currently only supported with standard C/C++ attributes ([[clang/gnu::musttail]]), not __attribute__ But given that you have existing code that uses the old syntax and clang suppo

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 --- Comment #31 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu --- Are there plans to support the __attribute__((musttail)) notation for C code? It appears that with heine:~/programs/gambit/gambit> clang -v Ubuntu clang version 14.0.0-1ubuntu1.1 one needs

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 --- Comment #30 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu --- Thanks. I asked for some help in testing this new attribute at gcc-help: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2024-August/143676.html

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 --- Comment #29 from andi at firstfloor dot org --- The semantics of -foptimize-sibling-calls do not change. However if your program depends on sbling calls for correctness it should migrate to the new attribute

[Bug c/83324] [feature request] Pragma or special syntax for guaranteed tail calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324 lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lucier at math dot purdue.

[Bug target/116174] [14/15 regression] Alignment request is added before endbr with -fcf-protection=branch since r15-888-gb644126237a1aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174 Hongtao Liu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/116174] [14/15 regression] Alignment request is added before endbr with -fcf-protection=branch since r15-888-gb644126237a1aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174 --- Comment #11 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e7735a8d87559bbddfe3a985786996e22241f8d commit r14-10588-g4e7735a8d87559bbddfe3a985786996e22241f8d Author: liuhongt Date:

[Bug target/116174] [14/15 regression] Alignment request is added before endbr with -fcf-protection=branch since r15-888-gb644126237a1aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9) > (In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #7) > > I confirmed that the patch from comment #6 addresses the build warnings I > > see in the kernel. > > Does the commit al

[Bug target/116174] [14/15 regression] Alignment request is added before endbr with -fcf-protection=branch since r15-888-gb644126237a1aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116174 Hongtao Liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >