https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #18 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #17)
> My though reading this is that most RICSs have problems synthesizing large
> literals, so putting a jump table in .text might increase the likeliho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> This appears to be fixed on trunk. Since this is marked as a regression,
> shall it be backported?
Hi Harald,
Yes it should. Unfortunately, I am working every waking ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92941
Bug ID: 92941
Summary: Test failure when no C++ compiler built
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92753
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92930
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 14 11:18:30 2019
New Revision: 279394
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279394&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92930
* ipa-pure-const.c (special_bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92357
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 14 11:19:07 2019
New Revision: 279395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/92357
* ipa-fnsummary.c (ipa_fn_summary_write): Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] GCC |[8/9 Regression] GCC
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92932
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup of at least PR92294 and PR54666;
These PRs are different because no target hook is needed to see that the code
is wrong. This is different with PR92606
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #19 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jean-Christophe Dubois from comment #15)
> > Am I missing something?
>
> YES. Most likely it will not be loaded in the instruction cach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 07:47:46AM +, thenlich+gccbug at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
>
> --- Comment #18 from Thomas Henlich ---
> (In reply to Thomas Henlic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91534
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70517
--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Christian Biesinger from comment #5)
> Using binutils from a month ago or so, this does not crash but also does not
> demangle...
Could you be slightly more specific?
Which symbol produced by wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92753
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 47497
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47497&action=edit
Provisional patch for the PR
The attached patch fixes the bugs in this PR. However, complex components of
derived
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70853
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92919
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 14 22:18:53 2019
New Revision: 279399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/92919
* charset.c (wide_str_to_charconst):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
__is_constructible is incorrectly false for such an aggregate:
struct aggressive_aggregate
{
int a;
int b;
};
int main()
{
static_assert(__is_constructible(aggressive_aggregate, int, int));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
Bug ID: 92942
Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow for allocations with a
negative lower bound size
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
One more thing besides the __is_constructible; this aggregate doesn't seem to
work in an unevaluated context. Both
decltype(aggressive_aggregate(1,2))
and
noexcept(aggressive_aggregate(1,2))
are rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen ---
This seems to do the right thing for __is_constructible. I haven't looked at
decltype or noexcept yet.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/method.c b/gcc/cp/method.c
index 97c27c51ea3..4b8daf8634f 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92943
Bug ID: 92943
Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow with an allocated buffer
with non-constant size in known range
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61579
--- Comment #6 from Rich Felker ---
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86464
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> EDG accepts it but Clang also rejects it:
>
> del.cc:5:11: error: member initializer 'foo' does not name a non-static data
> member or base class
> : f
23 matches
Mail list logo
