https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92311
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Nichols A. Romero from comment #3)
> Created attachment 47156 [details]
> OpenMP equivalent to OpenACC detach/attach
map(from:...)
means the variable is allocated, but uninitialized on the devic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91906
--- Comment #2 from Mike Crowe ---
v2 series posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-10/msg00055.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78237
Mike Crowe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91906
Mike Crowe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78237
--- Comment #4 from Mike Crowe ---
v2 series posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-10/msg00055.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92330
Bug ID: 92330
Summary: Wstrict-overflow documentation does not say that it is
deprecated and has no effect
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55881
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-01-07 00:00:00 |2019-11-2
--- Comment #8 from Manu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92330
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Actually, it is not even deprecated. There are still a bunch of
Wstrict-overflow warnings, just some of them got removed.
Is there a way to tell which ones are still active and update the
documentati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I'm 100% convinced this has nothing to do with locations and all to do with how
-Warray-bounds and -Wstringop-overflow= interact.
Change the ignored for error,
char one[50];
char two[50];
void
test_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
333 Warray-bounds
334 LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++)
335 ; in common.opt
This seems wrong, the second argument ", Wall" is missing. Moreover, this
probably should be an Alias for some -Warray-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92331
Bug ID: 92331
Summary: ICE on incorrect code with VLA
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89192, which changed state.
Bug 89192 Summary: -Wuninitialized doesn't warn about a vector initialization
with uninitialized field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89192
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Hi-Angel at yandex dot ru
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89192
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92331
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92332
Bug ID: 92332
Summary: invalid optimization in certain situations involving
placement new on i686
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92332
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
two things,
One is you are violating C++ aliasing rules I think.
Second is after "operator new", the value that is contained in the pointer is
undefined/unspecified.
NOTE in C++2a (or c++20), there is an ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66670
schlaffi at users dot sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schlaffi at users
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92333
Bug ID: 92333
Summary: missing variable name referencing VLA in warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92333
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92334
Bug ID: 92334
Summary: incorrect __builtin_object_size result for negative
offsets
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92334
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Whoops. There's a typo in the test case in comment #0 (wrong pointer passed to
__builtin_object_size). Here's a corrected test case:
$ cat z.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -fdump-tree-strlen=/dev/stdout z.c
void sin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92334
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
30 matches
Mail list logo
