https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93042
Bug ID: 93042
Summary: bit-field optimizations get in the way of interchange
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93032
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93043
Bug ID: 93043
Summary: fails to compile comparison between pointer and
convertible to nullptr_t
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93044
Bug ID: 93044
Summary: extra cast is not removed
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93044
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is the original testcase where I saw the issue (even without the
bit-field lowering pass; that I am working on):
#define N 100
#define M
struct S { int a : 3; int b : 17; int c : 12; };
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93044
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
In match.pd
&& ((inter_unsignedp && inter_prec > inside_prec)
== (final_unsignedp && final_prec > inter_prec))
looks suspicious.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92976
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93034
--- Comment #2 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de ---
ok, thanks for the heads up.
best regards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
--- Comment #9 from David Stone ---
It might further be worth giving the "you can rearrange to save sapce" option
two warning levels. The highest level would warn for all cases where
rearranging can reduce size, and the lowest level would warn fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92873
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91960
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88518
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Matthew Wilcox from comment #2)
> Thanks! What I actually want to do is annotate g() to the effect that it
> reads the pointed-to variable before it writes it. IOW, I want to write
> something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82179
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Federico Bento from comment #1)
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-09/msg00238.html
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-09/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88737
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Neal H. Walfield from comment #0)
> I would like an attribute to indicate that ownership of an argument is moved
> to the function. That is, any subsequent accesses to the variable should be
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90906
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> GCC doesn't diagnose returning a freed pointer as in the function below:
>
> void* f (void *p)
> {
> __builtin_free (p);
> // ...
> return p;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||84774
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Cj Welborn from comment #20)
> Has anything changed since 2017 that would let me use
> register_printf_specifier and -Wformat warnings at the same time?
Not that I know of; people still can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #22 from Cj Welborn ---
Thank you for the reply. It's probably out of my league, but I might take a
look when I get time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93045
Bug ID: 93045
Summary: gc bug with test "start_unit-test-1.c"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92794
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26190
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
Does the new combine2 pass proposed for GCC 10 fix any of this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18395
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Does the new combine2 pass proposed for GCC 10 address any of these issues?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53917
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-09-24 00:00:00 |2019-12-23
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83336
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92644
--- Comment #9 from Arseny Solokha ---
I believe, it can be closed now, as the gcc 8 branch is not affected?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91770
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
I wonder how hard it would be to get the interaction with -Wsystem-headers
right here, given how many other issues with -Wsystem-headers there are...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91777
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> It's also diagnosed by libstdc++ Debug Mode:
>
> /home/jwakely/gcc/10/include/c++/10.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h:294:
> In function:
> __gnu_debug::_Safe_ite
tion fault
9 | return id (1) ?: id (2);
| ^
0xf529d0 crash_signal
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.0_alpha20191222/work/gcc-10-20191222/gcc/toplev.c:328
0x8939d8 cp_gimplify_init_expr
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.0_alpha20191222/work/gcc-10-20
29 matches
Mail list logo
