https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85257
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Apr 7 07:20:42 2018
New Revision: 259206
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259206&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85257
* fold-const.c (native_encode_v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85274
Bug ID: 85274
Summary: [GCOV] A return statement in if(0) block is wrongly
marked as executed when they are nested in for(;1;)
statement and prefixed with an struct declaration and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Summary|[6/7/8 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80022
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85275
Bug ID: 85275
Summary: copyheader peels off almost the entire iteration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82976
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> match.pd looks like it has a type bug:
> /* Simplify pointer equality compares using PTA. */
> (for neeq (ne eq)
> (simplify
> (neeq @0 @1)
> (if (POINTER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80021
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Apr 7 10:57:53 2018
New Revision: 259211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80021
* tree.c (verify_type_variant):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84183
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Plank ---
(In reply to Thomas Plank from comment #4)
> I'm pretty sure I already had binutils updated to 2.30.
>
> I will give it a try with a downgrade to 2.29.1 and check if gcc 7.3.0
> builds then.
I didn't do the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85276
Bug ID: 85276
Summary: [GCOV] A comparative statement with '=', '&&' , '||',
and '==' operators is wrongly marked as executed twice
in gcov
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85276
--- Comment #1 from Yibiao Yang ---
This bug is similar to bug 85163.
As it is not a call statement apart from bug 85163, I report it as a new one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #2)
> A variant that aborts with this message directly :
>
> $ gfortran-6 z1.f90
> f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_assign_data_value, at
> fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85277
Bug ID: 85277
Summary: [8 Regression] Broken diagnostic for offsetof with
static member function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85278
Bug ID: 85278
Summary: [concepts] Garbled diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85279
Bug ID: 85279
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] Broken diagnostic for decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85280
Bug ID: 85280
Summary: [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85280
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target Mil
u
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-259207-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-pr85177-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180407 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85269
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Could you clarify the suggestion? Should your first example warn because
std::locale is only declared not defined? What if we later modify so
it does include the whole of , would that stop the warning? The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85269
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Also, we'd need to be careful so that we don't warn about referring to
> std::ostream without , because exists specifically to make
> that possible.
Also,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85269
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Your example in comment #2 should not warn. Projects often have their own
"base" header that includes a a bunch of standard headers and that by
convention is included in each of the project's source files so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82976
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Apr 7 23:52:03 2018
New Revision: 259212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-07 Thomas Koenig
Andrew Pinski
PR middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
Bug ID: 85282
Summary: CWG 727 (full specialization in non-namespace scope)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #1 from songyuanyao ---
The error message for the code (from gcc8.0.1):
error: explicit specialization in non-namespace scope
24 matches
Mail list logo
