https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> Test-case minimized from PR68279:
That should have been: Test-case minimized from PR68279 comment 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 1 01:55:47 2016
New Revision: 239913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/57728 - adjust testcase
* g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Bug ID: 77437
Summary: recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Manish changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manishthatte at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Here's a creduce'd minimal version of the test case that shows the addz after
the function call. Same compiler options as above.
extern int fn2 ();
extern void fn3 ();
extern void fn4 (int);
int a, c, d, f,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also how did you configure gcc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
--- Comment #4 from Manish ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Couple of questions:
> 1) What version of gcc are you starting with?
> 2) the log file does not have all of error messages (there are some more I
> know of it).
Current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
--- Comment #5 from Manish ---
../configure --enable-multilib --with-gmp=../gmp --with-mpc=../mpc
--with-mpfr=../mpfr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438
Bug ID: 77438
Summary: MMX intrinsic on x86_64 generates bloated code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drepper.fsp+rhbz at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
--- Comment #23 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Tracking binutils bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20545
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Gcc does avoid using the stack when it is more efficient to do so (depends on
the -march setting).
Yes, using SSE would be better.
The general advice is to stop using MMX.
Using gcc's vector extension generates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77261
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77417
Bug ID: 77417
Summary: libiberty strverscmp incompatible with glibc
strverscmp
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77417
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The only place where strverscmp is used is in darwin specific code.
One way of fixing this is to use gnulib which I thought one of the GSOC
students were doing (though I don't know the status on that project
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77418
Bug ID: 77418
Summary: SELECT TYPE associating entity can be (de)allocated
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77418
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Aug 31 07:50:44 2016
New Revision: 239881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239881&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-31 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/77418
* gfortran.dg/dt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77418
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77352
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71776
--- Comment #7 from malithyapa at gmail dot com ---
>From what i understand this is because of a Thumb16 branch instruction in
libgcc. Would it help if i compiled gcc with thumb disabled?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The 4.9 branch is closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72743
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
Altivec works on AIX, which requires 128 bit alignment. So GCC and AIX are able
to cooperate to generate the necessary alignment. The stack pointer is
supposed to maintain quadword alignment on AIX.
Presum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77395
--- Comment #7 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Wed Aug 31 12:38:05 2016
New Revision: 239890
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239890&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/77395
* include/std/type_traits (is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77395
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77419
Bug ID: 77419
Summary: Unconsistent behavior with references& and
__attribute__((unused))
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
Sounds fair. So, either the bug is that the stack pointer has 8 byte
alignment, or the formula for STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET results in the the wrong
amount:
-- rs6000.h --
/* Offset from the stack pointer regist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
> Presumably something in the rs6000 backend is not maintaining or not
> instructing the common part of GCC to maintain the alignment on AIX,
> but presumably is maintained on Linux.
Might be a problem with L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
It looks like STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET will behave correctly on AIX if Altivec or
VSX is enabled. AIX increased the alignment when Altivec support was added.
It appears that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET should add a t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77420
Bug ID: 77420
Summary: gfortran and equivalence produces internal compiler
error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
Something like this:
-- snip --
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
index 353f388..3158c24 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
@@ -1719,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt ---
> AIX increased the alignment when Altivec support was added. It
> appears that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET should add a test for AIX.
Is the alignment of the dynamic area part of the AIX Abi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77420
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
I was thinking more of
#define STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET(FUNDECL) \
(RS6000_ALIGN (crtl->outgoing_args_size, \
(TARGET_ALTIVEC |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt ---
But does that really match the Abi? On s390 (31 bit) we have an 8 byte aligned
stack pointer, but the size of a stack slot is just 4 bytes, so the offset from
the stack pointer may just be a multiple of 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
--- Comment #22 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Confirmed that it's a linker issue related to adjusting reloc addends in the
presence of align directives. Found two separate bugs, will post patches later
this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-ibm-aix*|powerpc*-*-*
--- Comment #12 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
> What do you mean by size of a stack slot?
On s390, if we have one "int" variables on the stack, this uses a "slot" 4
bytes. The stack pointer maintains an 8 byte alignmet though, i.e. SP is
changec by 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Bug ID: 77421
Summary: Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59055
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
Bug ID: 77422
Summary: -fdata-sections should put each string literal in its
own section
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70081
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fdata-sections should put |-fdata-sections should put
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16519
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-07-19 05:27:40 |2016-8-31
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423
Bug ID: 77423
Summary: -Wlogical-not-parentheses false positive for bitwise
expression with _Bool operands
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61513
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 39524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39524&action=edit
gcc7-pr65467-wip.patch
Untested WIP patch. This attempts to handle _Atomic qualified vars/expressions
etc. wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424
Bug ID: 77424
Summary: Identical statements in if-else branches
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77425
Bug ID: 77425
Summary: Pointer test follows dereference in sched-int.h
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426
Bug ID: 77426
Summary: Duplicate condition in expmed.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'd also encourage people to look at these issues for ideas for new
warnings in GCC, if they can define a warning case that's plausible to
check for in GCC with a low false-positive rate (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 39525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39525&action=edit
Patch to fix most of the reported issues.
I've created three new bugs for cases where the fix isn't clear. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Remaining issues:
find_structure in gengtype.c does:
structures = s;
s->kind = kind;
s->u.s.tag = name;
structures = s;
The first assignment is redundant.
ix86_expand_args_builtin in gcc/config/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh one more I missed. alter_output_for_subst_insn in gensupport.c has:
if (alt < 2 || *insn_out == '*' || *insn_out != '@')
return insn_out;
The second condition is redundant, since if it's == '*' t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> That doesn't make sense. The mergeable sections really need to be the same,
> otherwise nothing gets merged. And, unused constants/strings in those can
> be removed i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #18 from Walter Spector ---
Awesome!
I have noticed one bug so far. The compiler is missing a check to see if the
arguments in the I/O procedures have the 'optional' attribute. It is allowing
the attribute - even though it is illeg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Aug 31 17:45:26 2016
New Revision: 239900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77393
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Aug 31 17:54:32 2016
New Revision: 239901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77393
* gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 39526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39526&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't really like that. The linker has all the info to remove unused
mergeable constants or strings, so if it doesn't do that now, it should be
changed to do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427
Bug ID: 77427
Summary: ice when canonical types differ for identical types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Aug 31 18:22:58 2016
New Revision: 239902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
match.pd: Revert a * (1 << b) relaxation.
2016-08-31 Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77417
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #44 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Szőts Ákos from comment #43)
> Yes, I can agree with this reasoning. However, when you remove either the
> "while" or the "if" statements, the warning disappears. I don't think they
> should hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428
Bug ID: 77428
Summary: incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 39528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39528&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42669
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71345
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77374
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:08 2016
New Revision: 239903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/77374
* parse.c (parse_omp_oacc_atomic): Copy o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77352
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:55 2016
New Revision: 239904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/77352
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_parallel_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429
Bug ID: 77429
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at
fortran/dependency.c:1261
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Whereas :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
shape(1,2,3) = 0
end
$ gfortran-7-20160828 z3.f90
z3.f90:2:3:
shape(1,2,3) = 0
1
Error: Too many arguments in call to 'shape' at (1)
---
Some other case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77430
Bug ID: 77430
Summary: warn about redundant assignments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Remaining issues:
The missing warning is tracked in PR77430.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016
New Revision: 239907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons
gcc/ChangeLog:
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71077
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016
New Revision: 239907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons
gcc/ChangeLog:
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
|| xloc.file == '\0' || xloc.file[0] == '\xff'
|| xloc.file[1] == '\xff')
This missing warning is PR64767
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77431
Bug ID: 77431
Summary: warn for having the same code in if-else branches
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77425
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432
Bug ID: 77432
Summary: warn about null check after pointer dereference
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
Bug ID: 77433
Summary: warn about pointer that escapes its scope
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434
Bug ID: 77434
Summary: warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator
(?:)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|warn about
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
