https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> I assume you found this by using a libc with
> a malloc that has buffer overflow detection.
Actually, no. We inspected the function manually looking for the
cause of a t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
--- Comment #5 from Jan Čapek ---
(In reply to DJ Delorie from comment #4)
> Perhaps you need this patch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00993.html
DJ Delorie,
you are the man! The patch works as expected. Interestingly, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62199
Bug ID: 62199
Summary: ICE with -Wlogical-not-parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62199
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> Re: #c7:
>
> In sh.c, change "char amount[6]" to "signed char
> amount[6]" -- does that help?
Hm, using 'signed char' instead of 'char' maybe could solve a f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61996
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 33366
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33366&action=edit
proposed patch for 5,4.9,4.8
David, could you please try out this patch and see if it fixes the issues for
you? If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
Not sure if same or different - I am seeing
ChooseInitialTour.c:177:1: internal compiler error: in
lra_update_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1218
from trunk 20140820.
ice goes away when I remove -march
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
And maybe set DECL_BY_REFERENCE, a mere REFERENCE_TYPE doesn't prevent
you from doing (¶m)[2] which we'd miscompile. Not sure who added
that REFERENCE_TYPE code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
--- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov ---
s/unwind with fp/unwind without fp/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
Note that same problem may pop up in other tests as well so IMHO better fix
this in general.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62200
Bug ID: 62200
Summary: libstdc++ initialization priority
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62200
--- Comment #1 from Václav Zeman ---
And it dumps core on Cygwin as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #4)
> Note that same problem may pop up in other tests as well so IMHO better fix
> this in general.
Well, we could switch frame pointers in the [darwin.h] asan spec, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #2)
> s/unwind with fp/unwind without fp/
it should be possible to do this, if m32 code is compiled with
"-funwind-tables".
for m64, that's already the default and, also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62201
Bug ID: 62201
Summary: ICE with -Wlogical-not-parentheses: tree check:
expected class ‘expression’, have ‘exceptional’
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62199
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62201
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62190
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 20 11:06:48 2014
New Revision: 214216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Richard Biener
PR lto/62190
* tree.c (build_comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62098
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Aug 20 11:31:21 2014
New Revision: 214217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR target/62098
2014-08-20 Ramana Radhakrishnan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62098
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 33367
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33367&action=edit
Preprocessed and assembly files for gcc and clang
Preprocessed and assembly files for gcc (ftrapv-1_gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62202
Bug ID: 62202
Summary: g++ does not accept typedef-name after struct even if
-fpermissive is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Aug 20 12:48:16 2014
New Revision: 214221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-08-20 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/59304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Bug 58876 depends on bug 59304, which changed state.
Bug 59304 Summary: #pragma diagnostic pop after warning fails for options
unspecified in the command-line and disabled by default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62203
Bug ID: 62203
Summary: arm-rtems ICE compiling libgcc/fixed-bit.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62203
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
--- Comment #7 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #2)
> > s/unwind with fp/unwind without fp/
>
> it should be possible to do this, if m32 code is compiled with
> "-funwind-tabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62141
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62203
--- Comment #2 from Dave Malcolm ---
Sorry about this; I believe I introduced this in r214197, and fixed it in
r214207.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62203
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill ---
Could your change have impacted multiple targets? I see ICE on i386, nios2,
powerpc, and sh.
I would be happy to learn I just started a sweep at an unfortunate point. I
have updated my gcc tree and will star
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62203
--- Comment #4 from Dave Malcolm ---
(In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #3)
> Could your change have impacted multiple targets? I see ICE on i386, nios2,
> powerpc, and sh.
Yes. Sorry again.
> I would be happy to learn I just started a sw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62175
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 33368
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33368&action=edit
somewhat autoreduced testcsae
very slow to reduce. attaching what I have.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62204
Bug ID: 62204
Summary: internal compiler error with -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Aug 20 15:56:45 2014
New Revision: 214226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steve Ellcey
PR middle-end/49191
* doc/sourcebuild.te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Aug 20 15:57:42 2014
New Revision: 214227
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214227&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steve Ellcey
PR middle-end/49191
* lib/target-support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62091
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks, Jason!
This is patch I am testing that cures the testcase from Comment #7. I would
apprechiate if someone could reduce it - my simple attempts has failed and I am
bit in hurry this week.
The problem h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62176
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:18:27 2014
New Revision: 214229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR libgfortran/62188
* m4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62091
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Reduced testcase for Comment #7:
typedef enum
{
} UErrorCode;
class UnicodeString
{
public:
UnicodeString ();
virtual ~UnicodeString ();
};
class A
{
UnicodeString &m_fn1 (UnicodeString &, int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:23:55 2014
New Revision: 214231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR libgfortran/62188
* m4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:22:20 2014
New Revision: 214230
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214230&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR libgfortran/62188
* m4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62205
Bug ID: 62205
Summary: GNAT does not accept class types for Default_Iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #8 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:47:12 2014
New Revision: 214233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Martin Jambor
Wei Mi
PR ipa/60449
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
--- Comment #16 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:47:12 2014
New Revision: 214233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Martin Jambor
Wei Mi
PR ipa/60449
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62206
Bug ID: 62206
Summary: Gcc doesn't optimize methods in template class, even
when they don't depend on the template variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62206
ori bar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62206
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I would expect gcc to generate only a single version of `olga_rocks`.
Well it has to generate two different functions, that is:
C::foobar != C::foobar
has to hold true.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62198
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Sounds like a Clang bug to me. The type pointed to by "const int (*)[10]"
is "array of 10 const int", which is not a const-qualified type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #9 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Wed Aug 20 17:09:25 2014
New Revision: 214237
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Martin Jambor
Wei Mi
PR ipa/60449
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62206
--- Comment #2 from ori bar ---
It can still generate two different functions which are just single jump
instructions to the same code.
Also, does the C++ standard say that your inequality must be true?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449
--- Comment #17 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Wed Aug 20 17:09:25 2014
New Revision: 214237
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Martin Jambor
Wei Mi
PR ipa/60449
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62207
Bug ID: 62207
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl
minimal' structure, have 'overload' in tsubst_copy, at
cp/pt.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Known to fail|4.10.0
-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20140820 (experimental) [trunk revision 214209] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O3 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-trunk -flto -m64 -O3 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.9 -flto -m32 -O3 small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -flto
++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20140820 (experimental) [trunk revision 214209] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c fn1.c
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c main.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 *.o
$ ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O0 -c fn1.c
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O0 -c main.c
$ gcc-trunk -flto -O1 *.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #5 from xur at google dot com ---
I sent a patch for this a few days ago:
https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg87155.html
It's pending review.
Thanks,
-Rong
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM, ktietz at gcc dot g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ---
Yes, I remember. I didn't comment on it.
The following checks aren't ok.
'#if !defined(_WIN32)'
you should disable those parts *only* if ftw API isn't present. This you should
check by a HAVE_FTW_H configure-ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62198
--- Comment #2 from Paul H. Hargrove ---
Both icc (v13.0.1) and pgcc (v12.9-0) agree with gcc (and thus disagree with
clang) on this:
$ cat -n q.c
1
2 typedef unsigned long size_t;
3 extern const void *alloc (size_t);
4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62210
Bug ID: 62210
Summary: download_prerequisites does not download into current
directory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62211
Bug ID: 62211
Summary: ./configure --with-float= and ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #7 from xur at google dot com ---
OK. I'll fix this and submit another patch.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM, ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
>
> --- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
Bug ID: 62212
Summary: ICE compiling template function with array reference
parameter whose size depends on a template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61566
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61566
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Thanks, corrected the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62203
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62203
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill ---
Appears to be fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62177
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62198
--- Comment #4 from Gary Funck ---
I realize that this bug has been closed as invalid, thus making the warning
valid.
However, if the warning is valid what can be done to this declaration to avoid
the warning?
const int (*X0)[10] = alloc (10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Aug 20 23:07:29 2014
New Revision: 214245
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214245&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-08-21 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR fortran/44
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62175
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
struct B {
B(int = 0);
};
int c;
int *d;
struct G {
G();
int numProcs_;
};
int fn1();
B fn2() {
if (c)
return 0;
return B();
}
long &fn3(long &p1, long &p2) {
if (p2 < p1)
return p2;
retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45808
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|manu at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #8 from Manuel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35376
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|manu at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #1 from Manuel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52959
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59098
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44521
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44786
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
So what is missing here? Can we close this or not yet?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #8 from Philip Prindeville ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> For the general issue, my inclination is that we should add plugin hooks
> into the format checking machinery that allow plugins to define format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53562
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Thu Aug 21 00:27:25 2014
New Revision: 214251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-08-21 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR fortran/44
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Meanwhile, I added a FAQ to the wiki:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#Wmismatched-tags
Feel free to improve it !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62185
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62184
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #34 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
In any case, the current patch needs more work. In case you want to see this in
GCC 5.0, you need to hurry up! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7651
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
A good way to finish this is to find which option in Clang warns for the
corresponding thing in Wextra and add the same option to GCC.
I can take care of writing and testing the patches but someone els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44786
--- Comment #11 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
> So what is missing here? Can we close this or not yet?
I've tested that -fno-sanitize-recover works correctly with gcc-snapshot under
Debian. So, I sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44521
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
