http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
wangzheyu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tony.wang at arm dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61123
Bug ID: 61123
Summary: With LTO, -fno-short-enums is ignored, resulting in
ABI mis-matching in linking.
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
Joey Ye changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joey.ye at arm dot com
--- Comment #1 from Joey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #45 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Roland Schulz from comment #44)
> Is there a way to compile libgomp to not get false positives for omp-atomic?
yes, this is fixed in gcc for 4.9.0 see PR59194 or r206572
http://gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri May 9 04:54:00 2014
New Revision: 210254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Jeff Law
PR tree-optimization/61009
* tree-ssa-thread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61122
Bug ID: 61122
Summary: too many initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61120
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
> It seems that there is an infinite recursion with fold_binary_loc and
> fold_build2_stat_loc.
Likely a dup of PR 6 then.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61120
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61121
--- Comment #2 from Jim Michaels ---
the commandline:
"f:\x86_64-4.9.0-release-win32-sjlj-rt_v3-rev1\mingw64\bin\g++.exe" -Wall
-Wextra -v -save-temps -m64 -static -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -lstdc++
-ftree-parallelize-loops=n -floop-parall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61121
--- Comment #1 from Jim Michaels ---
g++.exe: error: argument to '-ftree-parallelize-loops=' should be a
non-negative integer
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=f:\x86_64-4.9.0-release-win32-sjlj-rt_v3-rev1\mingw64\bin\g++.exe
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
But arg0 = builtin_save_expr (arg0); would prevent from folding REALPART_EXPR.
Looking at the fold_unary_loc transforms on REALPART_EXPR, I think it is fine
to restrict the special fast-math treatment in fold_bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61121
Bug ID: 61121
Summary: -ftree-parallelize-loops=n (n as value) not accepted
in 4.9.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61120
Bug ID: 61120
Summary: wide-int merge causes segfault in cc1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Thu May 8 22:57:55 2014
New Revision: 210248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210248&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-05-08 Manuel López-Ibáñez
Matthias Klose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Thu May 8 22:30:32 2014
New Revision: 210247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-05-08 Manuel López-Ibáñez
Matthias Klose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Thu May 8 22:17:43 2014
New Revision: 210246
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210246&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-05-08 Manuel López-Ibáñez
Matthias Klose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55836
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59329
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Severi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #1 from Tavian Barnes ---
Created attachment 32763
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32763&action=edit
Preprocessed source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Bug ID: 61118
Summary: Spurious -Wclobbered warning generated by gcc 4.9.0
for pthread_cleanup_push
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks for debugging and resolving it.
(In reply to Maxime Boissonneault from comment #0)
> - the options given when GCC was configured/built;
> ../${SRCDIR}/configure CFLAGS="$FLAGS" CXXFLAGS="$FLAGS" \
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 8 19:57:06 2014
New Revision: 210242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Joshua Gay
PR libstdc++/61117
* doc/xml/faq.xml (faq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 8 19:52:40 2014
New Revision: 210241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Joshua Gay
PR libstdc++/61117
* doc/xml/faq.xml (faq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
Maxime Boissonneault changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 8 19:50:34 2014
New Revision: 210240
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210240&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Joshua Gay
PR libstdc++/61117
* doc/xml/faq.xml (faq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 8 19:49:26 2014
New Revision: 210239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210239&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Joshua Gay
PR libstdc++/61117
* doc/xml/faq.xml (faq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
Roland Schulz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roland at rschulz dot eu
--- Comment #44
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #10 from davidxl ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> Sorry, personal issue taking an enormous amount of my time right now. I
> have a fully tested patch and just need to twiddle the attached test into an
> executable te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sorry, personal issue taking an enormous amount of my time right now. I have a
fully tested patch and just need to twiddle the attached test into an
executable testcase for the regression suite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #23 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu May 8 19:32:34 2014
New Revision: 210237
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59952
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61095
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #22 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu May 8 19:23:45 2014
New Revision: 210236
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210236&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59952
* config/i386/i386.c (PTA_HASWELL): Remove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #21 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu May 8 19:13:10 2014
New Revision: 210234
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210234&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59952
* config/i386/i386.c (PTA_HASWELL): Remove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32960
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61092
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu May 8 19:02:28 2014
New Revision: 210233
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61092
* config/alpha/alpha.c: Include gimple-itera
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #19)
> The prefix can be emitted for any CPU, you don't need a flag for that.
> However, you cannot emit the XTEST instruction unless the CPU has HLE or RTM.
Please re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
--- Comment #1 from Joshua Gay ---
Index: faq.html
===
--- faq.html(revision 210229)
+++ faq.html(working copy)
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@
2.4.
I see. So, what restrictio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61116
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|redundant DWARF with VLAs |redundant DWARF with VLAs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53293
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13860
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61117
Bug ID: 61117
Summary: Manual uses term open source but should say free
software
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13860
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 8 18:30:14 2014
New Revision: 210231
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/13860
* include/std/fstream (basic_filebuf): Enforce r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61053
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61053
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu May 8 18:19:09 2014
New Revision: 210230
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210230&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61053
c-family/
* c-common.c (min_align_of_type): New functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #19 from Thiago Macieira ---
The prefix can be emitted for any CPU, you don't need a flag for that. However,
you cannot emit the XTEST instruction unless the CPU has HLE or RTM.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61077
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #18 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 32761
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32761&action=edit
Pre-processed file that causes ICE
The pre-processed file crashes both 4.9 branch and trunk in
ipa-inline-analy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61077
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu May 8 17:42:09 2014
New Revision: 210229
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61077
c-family/
* c-common.c (check_main_parameter_types): W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61116
Bug ID: 61116
Summary: redundant DWARF with VLAs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13868
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> I'm not sure about that, after all we enable PTA_HLE even for generic.
> The point is whether it might be beneficial to emit the HLE prefixes or not,
> on CPUs tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57394
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm not sure about that, after all we enable PTA_HLE even for generic.
The point is whether it might be beneficial to emit the HLE prefixes or not, on
CPUs that never have HLE obviously it doesn't make sense,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57394
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 8 17:17:06 2014
New Revision: 210228
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57394
* include/bits/ios_base.h (ios_base(const ios_ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61101
--- Comment #19 from Maxime Boissonneault ---
Hi again,
I notice in the first line that leads to an error of bits/c++config.h not found
:
/software6/src/gcc-4.8.2-build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/software6/src/gcc-4.8.2-build/./gcc -nostdinc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #15)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > I think HLE is the part of TSX.
>
> It is and should be removed from the list.
OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #9 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cbaylis
Date: Thu May 8 17:06:04 2014
New Revision: 210227
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210227&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Charles Baylis
Backport from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #8 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cbaylis
Date: Thu May 8 17:06:01 2014
New Revision: 210226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Charles Baylis
Backport from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #8 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cbaylis
Date: Thu May 8 17:06:01 2014
New Revision: 210226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Charles Baylis
Backport from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #15 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> I think HLE is the part of TSX.
It is and should be removed from the list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> Patch:
>
> --cut here--
> Index: config/i386/i386.c
> ===
> --- config/i386/i386.c (revision 210219)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #6 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Thu May 8 16:44:52 2014
New Revision: 210222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-05-08 Wei Mi
PR target/58066
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61112
--- Comment #2 from patrick at parcs dot ath.cx ---
Relevant contents of -fdump-tree-uninit:
[WORKLIST]: Update worklist with phi: w_2 = PHI
[CHECK]: examining phi: w_2 = PHI
[CHECK] Found def edge 1 in w_1 = PHI
[CHECK] Found def edge 1 in w
GCC) 4.10.0 20140508 (experimental)
module m
implicit none
private
type, abstract :: tt
contains
generic :: gen_f => ff
! Notice: eliminating the non_overridable everything works
procedure, pass(this), non_overridable :: ff
end type tt
contains
subroutine ff(this)
class(tt) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #1 from Tejas Belagod ---
Sorry I meant it fixes this on aarch64_be.
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-scevccp-outer-7.c execution test
cev-cprop addv.c
it generates this code:
foo:
movw0, 0
ret
.sizefoo, .-foo
.ident"GCC: (unknown) 4.10.0 20140508 (experimental)"
which is wrong!
Scalar evolution seems to hide this bug - if -fno-tree-scev-cprop is removed,
it works fine:
.typefoo,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61092
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60939
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
I am not aware of any specific workaround. I assume that if you could avoid the
function pointer, you would. G++ exception handling implementation on AIX is
fragile.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61113
--- Comment #2 from jpakkane at gmail dot com ---
In that case it would fail. But you can make it work by doing this (assuming
compilation with -fvisibility=hidden):
class __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) Thing final {
public:
void public
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I rather suspect a merge error. The following two need to match to not
oscillate:
/* Minimize the number of bits set in C1, i.e. C1 := C1 & ~C2,
unless (C1 & ~C2) | (C2 & C3) for some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61113
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to jpakkane from comment #0)
> That is, both the private and public methods are exported in the symbol
> table. The latter is wasteful because private methods can only be called
> from within the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Starts with r210113, ie the wide-int merge. Though that may just expose the
latent problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13981
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13981
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 8 14:30:56 2014
New Revision: 210217
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/13981
* typeck.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61113
Bug ID: 61113
Summary: Mark private methods hidden automatically
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61112
--- Comment #1 from patrick at parcs dot ath.cx ---
$ gcc -O2 -Wall this.c
this.c: In function ‘void foo(int, int, int)’:
this.c:13:10: warning: ‘w’ may be used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
p = w;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
This is with r210212.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61112
Bug ID: 61112
Summary: Simple example triggers false-positive
-Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
> Ville, has EWG taken a look at this issue? I'm sorry this didn't come up in
Not yet. The handling of Extension-status Core Issues was more or less
on hold w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Ville, has EWG taken a look at this issue? I'm sorry this didn't come up in
the C++14 context, as it would have made sense to fix this when we were adding
deduced return types.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Bug ID: 6
Summary: Infinite recursion between fold_build2_stat_loc and
fold_binary_loc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-vali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61110
Bug ID: 61110
Summary: Simplify value_replacement in phiopt
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59472
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That should work for the streambufs, it's not so simple for the standard stream
objects though, as they're user-visible and we declared their (pretend) types
in .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59472
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Reassigning to libstdc++ because the warnings seem to say the truth.
They do tell the truth.
We use char arrays for good reason (see the comment in src/c++98/glo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59100
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59100
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu May 8 13:17:01 2014
New Revision: 210212
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-08 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/59100
gcc/
* tree-ssa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59472
Paul Scruby changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul at scruby dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Please take the patch as yours. I don't have time at the moment to do all the
submission+pinging. (And perhaps it could be backported to GCC 4.9 and 4.8. It
is really a regression.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #5)
> this works and fixes the issue. running the full testsuite now.
It would be nice to add this testcase ("-Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused" should not
give -Wunused
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
