https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #3 from kassafari at gmail dot com ---
Alright, reported to apple as well [:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #2 from Kostya Serebryany ---
Does this happen with GCC trunk?
LLVM trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jun 4 07:26:06 2014
New Revision: 211212
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/30020
* c-common.c (check_case_bounds): Add location parame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61053
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm about to backport the fix even into 4.9 branch, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Bug ID: 61409
Summary: [4.9 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false-positive
with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
>> > So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
>> > However, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Also if the expression was loading a 32 bit value byte by byte then the
> transformation would be useful. I'm already working on a patch to add a cost
> model but this will just add more code to execute be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #19)
>
> I've now regtested that patch on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 (compared to a
> bootstrap without java before) and i386-pc-solaris2.11. No regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61053
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jun 4 08:22:22 2014
New Revision: 211214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61053
c-family/
* c-common.c (min_align_of_type): New funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61271
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|61276 |49706
--- Comment #11 from Manuel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #21 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #19)
>>
>> I've now regtested that patch on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 (compared to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #4 from Thibaut LUTZ ---
You're right, my bad. Thanks for correcting me.
The exact quote is
> Within the initializer-list of a braced-init-list, the initializer-clauses,
> including any that result from pack expansions, are evaluat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
This has nothing to do with evaluation, it's a syntax error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #20)
>
> > Maybe a better solution for sparc would be to add a switch for this pass and
> > disable it by default on sparc. What do you think about that?
>
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61410
Bug ID: 61410
Summary: strcat overwrites destination string when compiling
with optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #22)
>
> I'm giving both patches combined a try right now, though SPARC bootstrap
> will take 7+ hours to complete.
Great, thanks.
>
> Please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
A check that stmt-bb belongs to loop is missed in is_cond_scalar_reduction, if
we add the following lines
if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_ASSIGN
|| gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt))
return fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
[...]
>> Please remember to add proposed patches to the URL field of the PR,
>> otherwise they are easily overlooked.
>
> Sorry I'm not ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #25)
>
> Ah, I see: write-after-approval maintainers do get bugzilla write
> access, but your not according to the MAINTAINERS file.
Oups, my mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 4 09:23:52 2014
New Revision: 211216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-04 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61340
* ipa-pure-const.c (pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32887|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61410
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #23)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #20)
> >
> > > Maybe a better solution for sparc would be to add a switch for this pass
> > > and
> > > disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32888|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
Bug 61405 depends on bug 61340, which changed state.
Bug 61340 Summary: ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-reference.c: possible missing switch
cases ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58942
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Jun 4 10:07:21 2014
New Revision: 211220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/c/
PR c/58942
* c-array-notation.c (fix_builtin_array_notatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58942
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Jun 4 10:12:50 2014
New Revision: 211221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/c/
PR c/58942
* c-array-notation.c (fix_builtin_array_notatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fox at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #12 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #3 from Georg Koppen ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #2)
> Does this happen with GCC trunk?
Hard to say as it crashes differently:
Executing
/home/gk/asan/mozilla-esr24/obj-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/dist/bin/xpcshell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> > LLVM trunk?
>
> Have not tried yet. Shall I?
asan is being developed in LLVM trunk.
So if there is a bug in run-time it's better to investigate the freshest
variant in LLVM trunk
The fix will have t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61406
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47626
Tomas Psika changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||it at psika dot cz
--- Comment #3 from Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61411
Bug ID: 61411
Summary: [NEON] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at
postreload.c:411
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60098
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 4 11:56:34 2014
New Revision: 211224
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/60098
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60098
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 4 11:59:45 2014
New Revision: 211225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-04 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-05-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #5 from Georg Koppen ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #4)
> > > LLVM trunk?
> >
> > Have not tried yet. Shall I?
>
> asan is being developed in LLVM trunk.
> So if there is a bug in run-time it's better to investigate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:40:33 2014
New Revision: 211231
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61383
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:41:09 2014
New Revision: 211232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61383
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say there is no point in doing that. Just build the compiler-rt library
and link it in statically (-static-libasan) with gcc instead of the gcc one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
Bug ID: 61412
Summary: Warnings incorrectly suppressed when compiling
previously preprocessed file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> 3.
>
> Anyway, assuming that the intention is to unwrap the indirection from the call
> - something like: ...
The following patch fixes the failures (not co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #3 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> My guess is that what is uninitialized is "rw" and some optimization pass
> messed up the variable names when creating temporaries.
I'm afraid it's more ser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm pretty sure there's an existing report about this.
Adding -Wsystem-headers makes it warn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #0)
> Does not happen with GCC 4.7.2.
Are you sure?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #3 from Matt Godbolt ---
Many apologies: this does indeed also happen with GCC 4.7.2! Thanks for
checking.
Also, re: the -Wsystem-headers, this does indeed fix this case but of course in
general isn't a good workaround as system head
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #0)
> --begin example
> # 88 "some/file.cpp" 3 4
> struct Foo { int i, j; Foo() : j(1), i(0) {} };
> --end example
How did you produce that file? If you compile the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 4 15:51:01 2014
New Revision: 211235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211235&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/51253
PR c++/61382
gcc/
* gimplify.c (gimplify_arg): No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #5 from Matt Godbolt ---
I produced the file by preprocessing an existing file with g++ -E on an
existing file that exhibited the file (250k+ lines).
The full line I used to create the original preprocessed file is:
$ g++ -c -std=gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 4 15:51:01 2014
New Revision: 211235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211235&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/51253
PR c++/61382
gcc/
* gimplify.c (gimplify_arg): Non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
May be a dup of bug 57201.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #0)
> Also, mw was used in the
> previous line, with no warning.
I think uinit uses are computed walking the CFG backwards, and only one use is
reported per variab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #6)
> May be a dup of bug 57201.
I think not: that one is about warnings appearing after preprocessing (and we
know why this happens). This one is about warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
but maybe it is a dup of PR60723.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #5)
> In the original file the "# ..."
> line came from the middle of a macro expansion defined by a header included
> via an -isystem path.
That's the real problem:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
cat > sys/h.h < C.C << EOT
#include
int main () {
int i = 256;
X(i);
}
EOT
g++ -isystem sys C.C -Wall
g++ -isystem sys C.C -Wall -Wsystem-headers
In file included from C.C:1:0:
C.C: In function ‘int m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #12 from Matt Godbolt ---
I appreciate your patience on this! I'm also now confused. My 250k+
preprocessed file does not warn on a reordered constructor initializer, despite
there being no system code or macros involved in it. Compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #12)
> Compiling the
> original file (not the preprocessed version) directly warns as expected.
Ah I misunderstood that part, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61413
Bug ID: 61413
Summary: __ARM_SIZEOF_WCHAR_T is constant 32 -- should be 4 or
2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61412
Matt Godbolt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
Matt Godbolt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Bug ID: 61414
Summary: enum class bitfield size-checking failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59483
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
So, correction, the original testcase in 58972 is fixed by this patch, but the
other testcase in it ICEs the compiler. That testcase is not really related to
the issue the patch fixes, or the patch itself
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey ---
Jonathan pointed out that this is not really a bug because
an enumeration with a fixed underlying type has a different
definition of its underlying values.
However, the bug still exists if the underlying type i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61385
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Jun 4 18:38:18 2014
New Revision: 211245
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211245&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-04 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/61385
gcc/
* tree-ss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #1)
> > However, the bug still exists if the underlying type is not fixed:
> >
> > enum class K {
> > V = 27
> > };
>
> Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61385
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61415
Bug ID: 61415
Summary: PowerPC test gcc.target/powerpc/tfmode_off.c fails if
-mlong-double-64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61416
Bug ID: 61416
Summary: incorrect struct tag in diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61406
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=61417
Bug ID: 61417
Summary: can't use intrinsic function as argument to function
template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Thinking about this more, I've come to the conclusion that on the
release branches simply disabling IPA-CP of transactional memory
clones is the best solution to this bug. Patches for the branches
have alrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43453
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 4 22:30:39 2014
New Revision: 211248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211248&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-06-04 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/43453
* typeck.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43453
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #12 from Tom Tromey ---
I noticed this patch today and tried it out on my current
test case, which uses -Wc++-compat... unfortunately it
still fails.
Test code:
extern void xfer (int, int, unsigned char *);
void call (int x, int y,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61411
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 5 05:30:39 2014
New Revision: 211254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/48062
* c-decl.c (warn_if_shadowing): Call inform instead o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Yea, you're right, not everything has been fixed. I'll fix up this specific
case in a bit, thanks for reporting it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49706
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jun 5 06:20:05 2014
New Revision: 211255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211255&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/49706
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -Wlogical-not-parentheses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49706
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61418
Bug ID: 61418
Summary: [4.9 Regression] HDF5 build failure with -flto:
libgfortran.spec: attempt to rename spec 'lib' to
already defined spec 'liborig'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61418
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
97 matches
Mail list logo
