https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
But really this is already talked about the warning in bug 60517 and really in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770#c1 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> It would be nice to have. Perhaps related to PR49974.
Definitely related to PR 53855.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63274
--- Comment #1 from __vic ---
And yes, in this case I can just write
l.push_back({1, 2});
But both cases should be acceptable for compiler, IMO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63274
Bug ID: 63274
Summary: std::list uses T(...) instead of T{...} in
implementation of emplace()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
Dan Stahlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dan at stahlke dot org
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58102
--- Comment #3 from Richard Smith ---
Thanks, that is (was) a Clang bug; I've just fixed it. And there's a standard
defect here too, as far as I can see:
union U { int a; mutable int b; };
constexpr U u1 = {1};
int k = (u1.b = 2);
conste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63273
Bug ID: 63273
Summary: atomic operations lead to inefficient code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63229
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63234
baoshan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.1 |4.9.0
--- Comment #2 from baoshan ---
1. conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
Bug ID: 63272
Summary: GCC should warn when using pointer to dead scoped
variable within the same function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63254
--- Comment #2 from Scott ---
This problem is also apparent in defaults.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63245
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Samsonov ---
This is also reported as http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20721
I've mailed a patch that should at least fix the crashes:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D5253. I agree that UBSan can do better, and actually
ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63245
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it shows some bytes also before and after the region.
Perhaps it can do that with the exception when there is a page boundary in the
region before the access or after it, or perhaps it can do so witho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63271
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
The closest we currently handle (with -O3) is:
typedef int vec __attribute__((vector_size(4*sizeof(int;
void f(vec*r, int i){
(*r)[0]=3*i;
(*r)[1]=4*i;
(*r)[2]=7*i;
(*r)[3]=9*i;
}
(none of the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 15 19:46:12 2014
New Revision: 215275
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215275&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/56408
* gfortran.dg/dg.exp (gfortran_test_path, gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63271
Bug ID: 63271
Summary: Should commute arithmetic with vector load
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
Bug 61360 depends on bug 60704, which changed state.
Bug 60704 Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at
recog.c:2156 with -flive-range-shrinkage -march=amdfam10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ubizjak at gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58102
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Richard I'm trying to fix this bug, and while working on a draft I noticed that
current clang accepts:
struct A
{
int i;
mutable int j;
};
constexpr A a = { 0, 1 };
constexpr A b = a;
ie, doesn't rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63226
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63270
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63270
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 33495
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33495&action=edit
preparser.ii
.c:2212
0x576745 lto_create_files_from_ids
../../gcc/lto/lto.c:
0x576745 lto_file_read
../../gcc/lto/lto.c:2263
0x576745 read_cgraph_and_symbols
../../gcc/lto/lto.c:2966
0x576745 lto_main()
../../gcc/lto/lto.c:3420
gcc --version:
gcc (GCC) 5.0.0 20140915 (experimental)
Thanks,
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63269
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 33493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33493&action=edit
Proposed fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63269
Bug ID: 63269
Summary: libgo/math test failures in TestLog2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
David Kastrup changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from David Kastrup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is even documented as a fix in GCC 4.5, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html#cplusplus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
David Kastrup changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63254
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 33492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33492&action=edit
add spaces around macro
I was trying to test this fix but the machine I was using is unreachable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63234
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
Bug ID: 63268
Summary: Ambiguous non-specialized static template scope is
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
--- Comment #14 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
I posted here test results with the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-09/msg01449.html (on
x86_64-apple-darwin14).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|boot strap failu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63255
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-*-* |powerpc64-*-*, x86_64-*-*
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63267
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think GCC's behaviour is allowed by the standard. You do not explicitly
instantiate the static member 'Test::out', so the compiler provides an
implicit instantiation which is placed at the end of the file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63265
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63267
Bug ID: 63267
Summary: Static member of template class is not constructed
before it's used.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
51 matches
Mail list logo
