https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94621
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ola Olsson from comment #5)
> My god. Insanely fast. Dobra robota/prace!
The power of Free Software / Open Source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94621
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 48294 [details]
> gcc10-pr94621.patch
>
> Untested fix.
LGTM (obvious even)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
--- Comment #7 from Jan-Willem Blokland ---
Thanks for verifying my case. Your test makes me wonder which intrinsics are
effected in this and other versions of gfortran. Furthermore, I assume it also
happens when you pass the pointer to subroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61b58e7fa5aea3ef0c7db2d9f75d17d65dff56a3
commit r10-7766-g61b58e7fa5aea3ef0c7db2d9f75d17d65dff56a3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94628
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Picking those obvious to me at the moment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48298
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48298&action=edit
parts I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94570
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e9f799d25973fc38022c5ea71ed5a2bca58a847f
commit r10-7767-ge9f799d25973fc38022c5ea71ed5a2bca58a847f
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94621
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c58cb6ac6891886b7aa01c440ac71a5e7cbcba97
commit r10-7768-gc58cb6ac6891886b7aa01c440ac71a5e7cbcba97
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94570
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 48293 [details]
> gcc10-pr94618.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Looks logically correct - but are there no helpers for this on the RTL side?
Like LA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92326
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
All right, thanks for the clarification. Btw. qemu fixed the warning in the
meantime:
https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu/commit/4ce1e15fbc7266a108a7c77a3962644b3935346e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94632
Bug ID: 94632
Summary: [10 Regression] canonical types differ for identical
types since r10-7622-g12f55e030ed068d5
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94632
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps if we checked DEBUG_INSN_P on BB_END, we could then use
prev_nondebug_insn, so like:
if (INSN_P (insn) && BLOCK_FOR_INSN (insn))
{
basic_block bb = BLOCK_FOR_INSN (insn);
if (BB_END
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, a slight advantage of the patch as is is that it will do any insn walk
only if two conditions are met, BB_END is a DEBUG_INSN and insn is followed by
a DEBUG_INSN. My thoughs were that there could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I can reproduce it locally on openSUSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94631
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #2)
> > So basically the outcome of DR120 was allowing the GCC behavior? It still
> > seems like a bad thing, not required,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c41884a09206be0e21cad7eea71b9754daa969d4
commit r10-7769-gc41884a09206be0e21cad7eea71b9754daa969d4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] GCC 9.2.1 |[9 Regression] GCC 9.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94618
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression]
|'-fc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a64468a3034dd8e2d0794a5be84b8da544ffe2c3
commit r10-7770-ga64468a3034dd8e2d0794a5be84b8da544ffe2c3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at blamsoft dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Failed to build simple |[10 Regression] Failed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94633
Bug ID: 94633
Summary: golang 1.14.2 fails to bootstrap using GCC 10 on
riscv64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a809efd70d18c079d41051dc408de5e5f86a9797
commit r9-8506-ga809efd70d18c079d41051dc408de5e5f86a9797
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7bce1c72444bb3c9636b492975a0494b376678cf
commit r9-8507-g7bce1c72444bb3c9636b492975a0494b376678cf
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b835645c7a51b7e99092abe61d677aa491836f95
commit r10-7771-gb835645c7a51b7e99092abe61d677aa491836f95
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94633
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Try -fno-variable-tracking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[meta-bug] Issues that |[meta-bug] Issues in gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> updating title to include PVS studio bugs
actually it looks like there was already a previous meta-bug for PVS-Studio,
bug 77421, but it's closed already... do w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > We should for GCC11 discuss if we want to implement some of these checks,
> > either in -fanalyzer, or as normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 48299
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48299&action=edit
sorted list of redundant assignments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #15)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #11)
> > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> >
> > > Right, but the code is f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 48299
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48299
sorted list of redundant assignments
/* If there were any declarations or structure tags in that level,
or if thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94634
Bug ID: 94634
Summary: ++(fun(a)) is acts as lvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94635
Bug ID: 94635
Summary: [OpenMP][Offloading] mapping with alloc/delete
followed by map(from/fromto fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94636
Bug ID: 94636
Summary: gcov should and could output overall coverage. This
is just a 2 code lines change.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94635
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Just showing the dump – without further analysis:
#pragma omp target enter data
map(alloc:MEM[(c_char *)_9] [len: _8]) // _9 = my1dptr.data, _8 = 20*4
map(to:my1dptr [pointer set, len: 64])
map(all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79469
--- Comment #2 from felix ---
I realised recently that this is already expressible:
#define __builtin_assume(expr) \
(__builtin_pure_p(expr) \
? ((expr) \
? (void) 0 \
: __builtin_unreachable()) \
: (v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 48302
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48302&action=edit
Untested fix
I'm playing with this - only very mildly tested - fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 48302
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48302
Untested fix
+ /* IPA-SRA does not analyze other types of statements. */
+ gcc_unreachable ();
Won
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Stubbs ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> or if instead we should drop the "status = " for the cases where nothing
> checks it. Andrew?
I think checking the status is probably good practice, even thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #17)
> Created attachment 48302 [details]
> Untested fix
>
> I'm playing with this - only very mildly tested - fix.
Ugh.
I was thinking of altering the parameter s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at tree-ssa-dce.c, it uses remove_phi_node rather than gsi_remove for
PHIs. And for non-PHIs, it calls release_defs after gsi_remove.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > or if instead we should drop the "status = " for the cases where nothing
> > checks it. Andrew?
>
> I think ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
>
> --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Looking at tree-ssa-dce.c, it uses remove_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94632
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94630
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Note, at the moment, the patches are to make the existing configure switch
(--with-long-double=ieee) work correctly.
However, we need all of the pieces in place (gcc, glibc, libstdc++, etc.)
before we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94637
Bug ID: 94637
Summary: @selector() broken for selectors containing repeated
colons
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94638
Bug ID: 94638
Summary: @selector() broken for selectors containing repeated
colons
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94638
rfm at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94637
--- Comment #1 from rfm at gnu dot org ---
*** Bug 94638 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94597
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94608
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:256f2b632908ba46bb185c4850fc8e79dfdb9dbc
commit r10-7772-g256f2b632908ba46bb185c4850fc8e79dfdb9dbc
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94608
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94639
Bug ID: 94639
Summary: false-positive uninitialized value on fixed sized
array
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94632
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Smaller testcase that exhibits the ICE:
template struct b;
template class c {
template static void d(f e, b x);
public:
static const bool h = false;
};
bool y = c::h;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94640
Bug ID: 94640
Summary: false-positive leaking FILE pointer assigned to
function passed pointer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Comment on attachment 48302 [details]
> Untested fix
>
> + /* IPA-SRA does not analyze other types of statements. */
> + gcc_unreachable ();
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Instead of #c11 I meant:
- else if ((is_gimple_assign (stmt) && !gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt))
-|| gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_PHI)
+ else if (flag_tree_dce
+&&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #21)
> Btw, I'd much prefer to not first copy the stmts and then remove them.
> Instead the DCE "analysis" can be done on the original IL and stmts
> be "marked" t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 17, 2020 3:53:07 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
>
>--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>Instead of #c11 I meant:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For debug stmts, it would be best if we could use those
DEBUG D#Y s=> parm
DEBUG var => D#Y
added in if (param_body_adjs && MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_BIND_STMTS).
Though, if we remove already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94637
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
The bug appears to affect intrinsics only, for example this
program main
implicit none
type foo
integer :: x, y
end type foo
integer, dimension(:), pointer :: bp
type (foo), dimension(4), targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Now, perhaps the analysis code could also detect which lhs are directly or
indirectly needed by debug stmts and when doing this return NULL in
remap_gimple_stmt, we could do something like (much simplified)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dfc50232dcb703454db4f54c538042a32be2138
commit r10-7773-g1dfc50232dcb703454db4f54c538042a32be2138
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92326
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks! I'm glad to see the new warning has helpe identify (and fix) a real
bug!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e3897490e0f99b22a2813cfb34d59a1ea71ff68
commit r10-7774-g2e3897490e0f99b22a2813cfb34d59a1ea71ff68
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman ---
There is also this one from cppcheck:
trunk.git/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/formatter.h:302:40: warning: Redundant
assignment of '_M_variant._M_iterator._M_constness' to itself. [selfAssignment]
Source co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94635
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's what a solution could look like. I am not really sure that this
is the way to go, there may be some corner cases (pointer to an
argument which was passed as a transposed argument?) which this
might get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|easyhack|
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94630
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please mention in the TITLE that this is ONLY for the ELFv2 ABI?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90983
--- Comment #3 from Torsten Robitzki ---
Is there a workaround to disable that warning (once it was enabled) for the
case, gcc detects an unbound stack usage?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] Assertion |[8/9/10 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94631
--- Comment #5 from Rich Felker ---
No, GCC's treatment also seems to mess up bitfields smaller than int and fully
governed by the standard (no implementation-defined use of non-int types):
struct foo {
unsigned x:31;
};
struct foo bar = {0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94626
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94633
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94611 and https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94466.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94637
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94637
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
The change needs to happen inside c_parser_objc_selector_arg.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90983
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Using a very large -Wstack-usage argument should effectively disable the
warning. E.g., -Wstack-usage=4EiB or -Wstack-usage=$(getconf ULONG_MAX).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94635
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af557050fd011a03d21dc26b31959033061a0443
commit r10--gaf557050fd011a03d21dc26b31959033061a0443
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94623
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Needs more host/target information.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90983
--- Comment #5 from Torsten Robitzki ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Using a very large -Wstack-usage argument should effectively disable the
> warning. E.g., -Wstack-usage=4EiB or -Wstack-usage=$(getconf ULONG_MAX).
Unfortunat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Summary|[8/9/10 Regressi
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
