https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82383
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
libcilkrts can be removed from the list of directories to document, since it no
longer exists in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83559
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83656
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #20 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #19)
> Note you lost the regression marker when this was made a duplicate of 21161.
> So it's unlikely anyone would have looked at it until the next release cycle.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83559
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Fixed in r256188.
Thanks for the quick fix! One thing I'm still wondering, though, what's the
recommended way for maintaining compatibility with old compilers tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82177
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > --- Comment #5 from Krister Walfridsson --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> (In reply to Christian Cornelssen from comment #7)
> > I have made the time-consuming effort of building and testing gcc-7.2.0 with
> > varying subsets of the four
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Blocks had to be removed from the Objective-C sources in Emacs due to this bug:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2017-12/msg00301.html
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
I'm no longer using the computer where I have to be root so this bug is no
longer relevant for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #34 from Eric Gallag
||2018-01-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that this is a useful meta-bug grouping.
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: i386-apple-darwin9.8.0
Target: i386-apple-darwin9.8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83839
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Created attachment 43124 [details]
> Try this patch
My computer only finished bootstrapping with this version of the patch now, but
it worked. Thanks!
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Dup of bug 83839; a fix should already be on trunk.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 83839 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83839
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrewm.roberts at sky dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82240
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 83863 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Merging this into bug 82240
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 82240 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82240
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83822
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80188
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to nik from comment #3)
> Created attachment 42372 [details]
> Proposed Fix Send to the GCC-Patches List
Link to the mailing list archives showing where/when this was sent to
gcc-patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83673
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82132
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
ok, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60725
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
Worth returning to this issue now that -Wreturn-type is enabled by default for
gcc8.
---
(In reply to nik from comment #5)
> On 2018-01-17 02:15 AM, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80188
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
> > (In reply to nik from comment #3)
> >> Created attachme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48097
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|new Throw_2 failures in |gcc sometimes generates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82829
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
This makes it impossible to test if -Wsuggest-attribute=const works with my
usual autoconf macros for checking warning flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57069
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81440
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43301
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Ryan Johnson from comment #0)
> > ./configure ... --with-build-time-tools=$MY_TOOLS ignores $MY_TOOLS (though
> > it correctly warns when $MY_TOOLS i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38743
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > a patch like http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg00474.html is
> > needed for libgcc.
>
> Confirming tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49070
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66504
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.4, 4.8.5, 5.5.0, 6.4.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35511
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51088
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> Patch to give an error if taking an address of a label defined in ({}):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00381.html
Does this patch still apply aga
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> Created attachment 39528 [details]
> tentative patch
Have you sent this patch to the gcc-patches mailing list yet?
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #0)
>
> An implementation was submitted to GCC but never approved here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02390.html
Adding the "patch" keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71176
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49973
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23087
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66505
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82829
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84076
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84127
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77331
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #34 from Eric Gallager ---
So, since backports were requested for 5 and 6, and the 5 branch is closed now,
and the backport for 6 is already done, I'm going to close this as FIXED now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59865
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78497
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Patrick.Schluter at ec dot
europa.
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think we have a dup for this.
Yeah, it's bug 78497
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80567
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-18 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84177
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48595
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56457
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
>
> What I meant to say is: See also bug 81141 for a related request (limited to
> strncpy). The patch submitted there issues a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #7)
> AFAICT, it's still the case for powerpcspe target even on trunk (as of
> r259982). While gcc apparently doesn't generate SPE instructions for both
> attached tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31351
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> > This is a bug yes, but it won't get fixed unless someone that cares about it
> > steps up to fix it.
>
> I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49194
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63793
--- Comment #20 from Eric Gallager ---
Should this really have the middle-end for its component? It seems like this is
more of a target issue...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > There are other bugs open based on that assert failing; lemme see if I can
> > find them...
>
> There might be b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > > There are other bugs open based on that assert failing; lemme se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> > actually since all the bugs seem to be about different targets triggering
> > that assert in different ways, woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> r265896 might have affected this
Update: apparently not; I still had to deactivate libunwind-headers again on my
latest build of gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78147
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
There's probably a lot more bugs that should fall under this meta-bug than
currently do; I'll leave finding them all for another day though (or for
someone else to do)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
>
> The test case makes the tacit assumption that argc is necessarily
> non-negative. That makes sense for the argc argument to main but not in
> other situations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
My previous arguments for having a flag for this have been in the positive
form, i.e., so that it can be enabled separately, but I'd also like to state it
in its negative form, i.e., so that one can do -std=c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34721
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68771
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48562
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> Can the bug be marked as resolved?
I don't think so:
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #10)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> > There ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63633
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Can the bug be marked as resolved?
It already was, but then it was reopened because a duplicate was found:
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #5)
> Reop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63633
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #32 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52130
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35592
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 45777
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45777&action=edit
testcase
(In reply to felix-gcc from comment #6)
> Sure. For example:
>
> char* c=malloc(lseek(somefd,0,SEEK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86395
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80204
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #0)
> (I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30357
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89443
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
801 - 900 of 3691 matches
Mail list logo