https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|ams at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108900
Bug ID: 108900
Summary: [libcpp] cpp gives wrong line number information
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cohenarthur at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
so not a bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Iff only (GNU) C would accept the following ...
struct foo {
...
unsigned int count;
...
int data[count];
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I don't see saved-unsupported used anywhere else, please double-check it's not
in your target board?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the uses of __bdos for -fsanitize=bounds* IMHO certainly, we really
shouldn't duplicate what another sanitizer does there.
As for whether -fstrict-flex-arrays= should or shouldn't affect
-fsanitize=bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/Rust-GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Starting from r13-5154-g733a1b777f16cd, this failure is gone on Power10 LE (or
with explicit -mcpu=power10), but it shows up on Power8 LE. By checking
r13-5154, this behavior change is expected, the priorities o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108519
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108898
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Stubbs ---
I tested it on i686-pc-linux-gnu before I posted the patch, and it was working
then. Can you be more specific what configuration you were testing, please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108876
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Max Filippov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c3191de2a82a406200dab364c49a571a80db0af
commit r13-6293-g4c3191de2a82a406200dab364c49a571a80db0af
Author: Max Filippov
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108876
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Max Filippov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:782e442e4f3b88937a725a01245dd749f3f893b9
commit r13-6294-g782e442e4f3b88937a725a01245dd749f3f893b9
Author: Max Filippov
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108519
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> We diverge in sched1 due to extra calls to advance_one_cycle when scheduling
> a BB that is empty apart from one debug insn. The following patch adds a
> hexdump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108261
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54504|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106921
Tomasz Kapela changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkapela at poczta dot fm
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31cc5821223a096ef61743bff520f4a0dbba5872
commit r13-6296-g31cc5821223a096ef61743bff520f4a0dbba5872
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108901
Bug ID: 108901
Summary: [13 Regression] Testsuite failures in
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/cond_*
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108901
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6)
> There's r13-1113 with introduced the use of visible().
+ /* Visibility attributes are used by the debugger. */
+ set_visibility_for_decl (decl->csym, decl);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612639.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612647.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #9 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> +
> +/* NODE is a FUNCTION_DECL, VAR_DECL or RECORD_TYPE for the declaration SYM.
> + Set flags to reflect visibility that NODE will get in the objec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #10 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Without using `->visible()` would be something like:
--- a/gcc/d/decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/d/decl.cc
@@ -2559,10 +2561,17 @@ set_linkage_for_decl (tree decl)
void
set_visibility_for_decl (tree node,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #9)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> > +
> > +/* NODE is a FUNCTION_DECL, VAR_DECL or RECORD_TYPE for the declaration
> > SYM.
> > + Set flags to reflect visi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108902
Bug ID: 108902
Summary: Conversions std::float16_t<->float with FP16C are not
vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Honza, one possibility would be to add_cgraph_removal_hook for the duration of
analyze_functions which would update first_analyzed and remove it at the end.
Or do we have some way to mark a symtab node for d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108870
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think even on the libsanitizer side we don't always need such non-automatic
variable debug info, e.g. if no diagnostics needs to be reported for global
vars but just for automatic ones, heap etc., so perha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108858
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Assert_Failure at |[13 regression ] assertion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108903
Bug ID: 108903
Summary: ASAN may miss a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108801
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-23
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108261
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54515|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108871
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> *** Bug 108893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hello Andrew
May I check, I thought attribute access read_only was different from attribute
nonnull
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108895
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-23
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108904
Bug ID: 108904
Summary: ASAN at -O2/3 missed a global buffer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108901
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
possibly fixed by my followup?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108901
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97276
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|atxmega32a4 |avr
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Btw, I also see the errors when testing with -m32. Might be related to the
> dejagnu/tcl versions installed?
>
> I have dejagnu 1.6.3 and tcl 8.6.13
Were you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97276
--- Comment #3 from David Weese ---
Have you seen the attachment? It's all in there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I bet yes, because I've just reproduced it with
make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} modules.exp'
Retrying now with my patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108030
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e29e2fbeb8936e5c85cefaf547cba42e17e137b
commit r13-6298-g2e29e2fbeb8936e5c85cefaf547cba42e17e137b
Author: Matthias Kretz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108030
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92c47b15d5af3e7f93d11ad69a45b6d1cb8661c5
commit r13-6299-g92c47b15d5af3e7f93d11ad69a45b6d1cb8661c5
Author: Matthias Kretz
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108903
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108784
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108904
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, I thought we wanted to use __bdos for -fsanitize=object-size but that has
been done already:
commit 28896b38fabce818e59266b0063a46b3bc1b700f
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
Date: Tue May 10 12:51:42 2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106258
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68e7489b6c1035c69ee008a63d3d56e89fafbb30
commit r13-6303-g68e7489b6c1035c69ee008a63d3d56e89fafbb30
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f9a7095d910379cd86ac45f81c79b363f859996
commit r13-6304-g9f9a7095d910379cd86ac45f81c79b363f859996
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108791
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE:|[12 Regression] ICE:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108792
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108793
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108795
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108905
Bug ID: 108905
Summary: Debugging information refers to the wrong file
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108843
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Debugging information |Debugging information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97276
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 54518
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54518&action=edit
pwn-i.c pre-compiled test case
Ok, I found it and attached a cleaned-up version.
IIUC correctly, the releva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108843
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case where adding -g takes 20x longer to compile:
$ typedef uint16_t;
typedef uint32_t;
typedef uint64_t;
(safe_rshift_func_int8_t_s_s)() {}
struct S0 {
signed f0 : 5
};
union U1 {
short f0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108881
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is that duplicate_thunk_for_node when copying the
FUNCTION_DECL node doesn't also copy DECL_ARGUMENTS (unless some changes to the
arguments are needed).
--- gcc/cgraphclones.cc.jj 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97276
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
... also tried v9.2 via
https://godbolt.org/z/9r3vMj1e3
and just like with v8.5, the respective block is around asm line 350.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5592679df783547049efc6d73727c5ff809ec302
commit r13-6306-g5592679df783547049efc6d73727c5ff809ec302
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108871
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> *** Bug 108893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
N.B. this one is about __attribute__((access(read_only, 1))) not nonnull. The
docs already seem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108030
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e171d840584a564993201101cd1f2e920e7aecb
commit r12-9200-g8e171d840584a564993201101cd1f2e920e7aecb
Author: Matthias Kret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108902
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-std=c++23 -march=x86-64-v3 -O3 -mno-vzeroupper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108848
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=108881
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #5)
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/
> stl_algobase.h#L417-L437
>
> Is the extent of the fix just to add another b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> I suspect std::move has the same issue too. The ability to use memmove with
> trivial copyable subobjects ...
std::move(x,y,z) and std::copy(z,y,z) use the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108846
--- Comment #11 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> std::move(x,y,z) and std::copy(z,y,z) use the same underlying
> implementation, so it does have the same issue, but will be fixed by the
> same change.
Rig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108881
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108906
Bug ID: 108906
Summary: Bogus may be used uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108621
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
The warning itself is bogus (false positive in the middle end).
I get:
Warning: ‘f.dim[idx.1_32].lbound’ may be used uninitialized
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
If I now look at the 021t.ssa dump, I see:
f.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107818
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
include/line-map.h:const location_t LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_PACKED_RANGES =
0x5000;
include/line-map.h:const location_t LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS =
0x6000;
include/line-map.h:const location_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108895
--- Comment #2 from Henry Le Berre ---
Thank you Thomas for your swift reply! I would also like to thank you for
fixing the previous bug I had reported, it is sincerely appreciated. I will
take a look at the devel/omp/gcc-12 branch to see how mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #24 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, daniel.lundin.mail at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> In this code
>
> static const int y = 1;
> static int x = y;
>
> y is not an integer constant expression, n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108907
Bug ID: 108907
Summary: ira-color.cc:3028:1: error: definition in block 5
follows the use
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108908
Bug ID: 108908
Summary: [13 regression] r13-6278-g3da77f217c8b20 causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108908
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Was this not fixed by r13-6296-g31cc5821223a096ef61743bff520f4a0dbba5872 (aka
PR 10 )?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #7)
> 1. let -fstrict-flex-arrays=N to control the behavior of -fsanitize=bounds;
I'm ok with that.
> 2. -fsanitize=bounds-strict actually is an alias of -fsanitize=bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108030
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1f70114f9bae5a1dbcec4b556c16716601fccf1
commit r11-10543-ga1f70114f9bae5a1dbcec4b556c16716601fccf1
Author: Matthias Kre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108909
Bug ID: 108909
Summary: Build process does not honor discovered path to
"gnatmake" and "gnatlink"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108261
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Gaius Mulley from comment #25)
> Created attachment 54516 [details]
> Proposed fix version 6
>
> Version 6 (more coroutine tests) and RTint.mod with more descriptive
> variable names.
This does
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
