https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61440
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #69 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 61440 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81656
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59572
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81566
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|invalid attribute aligned |[4.9/5/6/7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81675
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #14)
> (In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #13)
> > On July 20, 2017 10:47:54 AM PDT, ubizjak at gmail dot com
> > wrote:
> > >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> The TREE_INT_CST_LOW part looks suspicious. Also, wide-int.h should provide
> enough infrastructure so that you should be able to do everything on
> wide-int, n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I had in mind something like
wi::eq_p (wi::ext (w, TYPE_PRECISION (type), TYPE_SIGN (type)), w)
or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> I had in mind something like
> wi::eq_p (wi::ext (w, TYPE_PRECISION (type), TYPE_SIGN (type)), w)
> or so.
Ah, good, thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-05-12 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81676
Bug ID: 81676
Summary: Wrong warning with unused-but-set-parameter within 'if
constexpr'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> ... the patches handle the issue in different ways:
> - handle the case that there's an edge with uninitialized probability
> - initialize probability on some edges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to cesar from comment #4)
> I posted a patch that fixes this issue on July 13, 2017:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00750.html
>
> It is pending review.
The patch has been revie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81538
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 41895
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41895&action=edit
Function Perl_custom_op_get_field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80815
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
vect_perm added for the the test case. It should be bypassed now on
sparc-sun-solaris2.12?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81661
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81448
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Confirmed.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81448
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Cool, thanks for confirming.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 81638, which changed state.
Bug 81638 Summary: [8 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO
predictor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63386
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81538
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 41897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41897&action=edit
miniperl debug session
The flow and optimization of the Perl_custom_op_get_field function is quite
complex.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81538
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
--- Comment #9 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
Bug ID: 81677
Summary: Can't declare pointer to array of incomplete type in
struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53312
--- Comment #4 from philippe.waroquiers at skynet dot be ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> (In reply to philippe.waroquiers from comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > This looks like PR53214 - unable to verify without a te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
In C90, arrays of incomplete types are forbidden because incomplete types
are not (before C11) object types. See footnote 17 in subclause 6.1.2.5.
In C99 this becomes a constraint in 6.7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
--- Comment #2 from chris.ol...@iti-global.com ---
This isn't an array of incomplete type, but a pointer-to-array of incomplete
type; not just any incomplete type, but struct that is guaranteed to be
complete when the outermost } is encountered. A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 41899
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41899&action=edit
Patch under test
This is the patch I'm currently looking at. I am unhappy at having to use a
tree to get maxva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81678
Bug ID: 81678
Summary: Variadic template parameters containing pointer to
member function fail to be parsed unless name of the
parameter is specified
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Bug ID: 81679
Summary: use attribute unused on function arguments as an
optimization hint
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
There is no such thing as an array type whose element is incomplete - you
can't construct, or describe, such a type in C at all, and attempts to do
so have undefined behavior in C90, are co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 1) When attribute unused is specified on a function argument of pointer type
> in
> a declaration of a function, GCC could use that as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
--- Comment #4 from chris.ol...@iti-global.com ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
> Because the type doesn't exist,
I don't know what you mean by a type that "doesn't exist". A declared but
undefined struct is incomplete bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, chris.ol...@iti-global.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
>
> --- Comment #4 from chris.ol...@iti-global.com ---
> (In reply to jos...@codes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81677
--- Comment #7 from chris.ol...@iti-global.com ---
I'm not arguing that arrays declarations should be allowed to derive from
incomplete types, nor all pointers-to-array of incomplete type be allowed; I'm
specifically arguing that a struct should b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81617
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Would it be possible for you to check whether the patch at
https://golang.org/cl/52611 fixes the problem?
Actually I'll attach it here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81617
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 41900
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41900&action=edit
possible patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81680
--- Comment #1 from Google-Autofuzz ---
Created attachment 41902
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41902&action=edit
Demangle PoC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81680
Bug ID: 81680
Summary: Memory leak in demangle
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81681
Bug ID: 81681
Summary: Memory leak in demangler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81681
--- Comment #1 from Google-Autofuzz ---
Created attachment 41904
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41904&action=edit
Demangler PoC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81682
Bug ID: 81682
Summary: Timeout in demangler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81682
--- Comment #1 from Google-Autofuzz ---
Created attachment 41906
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41906&action=edit
Demangler PoC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81683
Bug ID: 81683
Summary: Memory leak in demangler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81683
--- Comment #1 from Google-Autofuzz ---
Created attachment 41908
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41908&action=edit
Demangler PoC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81684
Bug ID: 81684
Summary: Out of Memory in demangler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81684
--- Comment #1 from Google-Autofuzz ---
Created attachment 41910
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41910&action=edit
Demangler PoC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61639
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59499
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65957
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66097
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
101 - 161 of 161 matches
Mail list logo