https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #30 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
For references, Linus himself fixed the issue:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=474c90156c8dcc2fa815e6716cc9394d7930cb9c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79822
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79823
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also I think asan support was only added in GCC 5 for aarch64 (but I could be
wrong).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79823
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79823
Bug ID: 79823
Summary: Address Sanitize compile,got undefined reference to
'__asan' errors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79822
Bug ID: 79822
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE with void statement expression
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Weird, that commit only changes the names of some variables.
A similar patch has been committed to the gcc-5 and gcc-6 branches, so we
should be sure a similar ICE doesn't happen on the branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61891
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
Bug ID: 79821
Summary: [7 regression] SEGV in cc1plus compiling 64-bit
stdc++.h.gch/O2g.gch
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 2 21:35:38 2017
New Revision: 245854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245854&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79514
* config/i386/i386.md (*pushxf_ro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79782
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 2 21:31:40 2017
New Revision: 245853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245853&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79782
* init.c (mark_exp_read_r): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 2 20:42:33 2017
New Revision: 245851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79514
* config/i386/i386.md (*pushxf_ro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71749
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Sure, feel free to submit it. If that's easier for the gcc submission process,
feel free to submit it under your own name: for such a small contribution, I
really don't care if my authorship is preserved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79819
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can create additional attachments one at a time.
Yes, I believe your code has undefined behaviour, so the linker error is not a
gcc bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79819
--- Comment #2 from Nikolay Bogoychev ---
> This attachment is a pain, is there really a need for each loader_file.ii to
> be in its own tar file?
No, there isn't really. I didn't realize I could only attach one file so I
merged everything.
> A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
Bug ID: 79820
Summary: std::ifstream sets errno to zero
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79789
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79789
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 2 18:59:06 2017
New Revision: 245847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/79789 fix non-reserved names in headers
PR libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79789
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 2 18:58:07 2017
New Revision: 245846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/79789 fix non-reserved names in headers
PR libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79819
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nikolay Bogoychev from comment #0)
> Created attachment 40874 [details]
> console output from failed compilation and *.ii files
This attachment is a pain, is there really a need for each loade
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 2 18:47:03 2017
New Revision: 245844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245844&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79514
* config/i386/i386.md (*pushxf_ro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79779
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78999
--- Comment #1 from Brian Plummer ---
I still have this problem. I just updated my cygwin because I thought I saw
some updates to the gcc toolchain, but it had no effect.
I also see this issue when I am trying to run configure on my gcc-6.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69804
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65705
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71749
--- Comment #4 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
If it is ok with you, I will do it in ur name as well. But first, let me see
how the nightly goes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79631
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79761
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79807
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40875
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40875&action=edit
gcc7-pr79807.patch
Here is the untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79819
Bug ID: 79819
Summary: collect2 undefined reference when -O0. Regression (or
bugfix?) since gcc5
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79807
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79770
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79769
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
Freddie Chopin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freddie_chopin at op dot pl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79764
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've got hopefully patch for that. I'm planning to test it on a hardware
tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79780
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 2 16:02:37 2017
New Revision: 245843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/79780
* cprop.c (one_cprop_pass): When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79791
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79805
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40873
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40873&action=edit
gcc7-pr79805.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Patch has been submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg00110.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79791
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79814
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 40872
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40872&action=edit
incremental warning patch
Incremental patch ontop of r245840 to trigger the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79345
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 2 13:42:05 2017
New Revision: 245840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/79345
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42000
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 2 13:42:05 2017
New Revision: 245840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/79345
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79818
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> - (if (TREE_OVERFLOW (res))
> + (if (TREE_OVERFLOW (res)
> + && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (@0)))
I don't remember why I wrote it that way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78747
--- Comment #3 from Jan Engelhardt ---
The workaround is
global { extern "C++" { *::_Rep::_S_empty_rep_storage; }}
but of course that was not the question embedded in this "bug" report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #31 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
There's something I don't understand: Whether -Wuninitialized or
-Wmaybe-uninitialized is used, I don't see any difference in the behavior of
GCC between
[...]
if (bar (i)) {
baz (&j);
}
[...]
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79818
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> We have ++c on signed char, which gcc turns into c=c+1, still on signed
> char, where overflow is undefined behavior. The problem is long before the
> transformation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79818
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
We have ++c on signed char, which gcc turns into c=c+1, still on signed char,
where overflow is undefined behavior. The problem is long before the
transformation of the comparison. If ++c means c=(signed char)(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79818
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
0f7b961/bin/gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 7.0.1 20170302 (experimental)
$ /usr/local/gcc-0f7b961/bin/gcc -fwrapv -O1 -o test test.c ; ./test
Aborted
$ /usr/local/gcc-0f7b961/bin/gcc -fwrapv -O2 -o test test.c ; ./test
Aborted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78747
--- Comment #2 from Priyanka Sabharwal ---
(In reply to Jan Engelhardt from comment #0)
> The following testcase produces a crashing program.
> The gist seems to be that main.o and lib1.o each get a copy of the
> std::basic_string::Rep::_M_dispos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71749
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Will you submit the patch to gcc mainline yourself?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71749
--- Comment #2 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
Proposed patch for mainline:
diff --git a/gcc/config/arc/arc.h b/gcc/config/arc/arc.h
index 5cc9dc1..d270390 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arc/arc.h
+++ b/gcc/config/arc/arc.h
@@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ along with GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #34 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #33)
> I have a fix for PR2972 and it also correctly handles this case so why is it
> "conceptually different"?
Because to detect uninitialized member usage in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > This is already fold-const.c transforming TRUTH_ANDIF into TRUTH_AND.
>
> I cannot find the discussion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #32)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #31)
> > This is really a dup of PR2972.
> >
> > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2972 ***
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79756
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 2 11:44:16 2017
New Revision: 245838
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245838&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-02 Richard Biener
PR c/79756
* c-common.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
Summary|[5/6/7 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> This is already fold-const.c transforming TRUTH_ANDIF into TRUTH_AND.
I cannot find the discussion now, but I think it was discussed in one of the
many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79805
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34307
Bug 34307 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.
Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972
Bug 2972 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.
Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.
Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79805
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79806
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #30 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
> What remains seems to be complaining that
>
> int i;
> foo (&i);
>
> doesn't warn. And we have another bug that
>
> int i;
> foo (&i);
> ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79774
--- Comment #5 from xuliqun ---
Sorry, my gcc is 4.9(\aarch64\aarch64-linux-android-4.9-kasan), not 4.8.4,
Is there any idea,thanku
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79813
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||xtensa-lx106
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 40870
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40870
Proposed patch
LGTM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 40870
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40870&action=edit
Proposed patch
Patch that implements *pushxf_rounded pattern.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79809
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Mar 2 11:25:11 2017
New Revision: 245837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245837&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/66768
* tree-ssa-loop-ivop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #12 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Mar 2 11:04:01 2017
New Revision: 245836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-02 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78379
* m4/matm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79743
--- Comment #2 from Денис Крыськов ---
ok, will provided standalone .cpp next time.
Jonathan, thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 42000, which changed state.
Bug 42000 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized warning on a user-defined class ctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42000
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41742
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With current trunk the loop code is better (uses stbu), but the
unnecessary extend still is there:
memset:
cmpwi 0,5,0
beqlr 0
rlwinm 4,4,0,0xff
mtctr 5
addi 9,3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79817
Bug ID: 79817
Summary: GCC does not recognize [[deprecated]] attribute for
namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79816
Bug ID: 79816
Summary: -Wformat-security should warn about missing or excess
precision/width in %s specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 40375, which changed state.
Bug 40375 Summary: redundant register move with scheduler before RA turned off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40375
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40375
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79815
Bug ID: 79815
Summary: gcc does not implement C++ standard 7.1.7.4.1 p5
correctly.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79814
Bug ID: 79814
Summary: pass-instances.def:36:14: error:
‘*.gcc::pass_manager::pass_warn_unused_result
_1’ is used uninitialized in this function
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-07-06 13:19:06 |2017-3-2
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79809
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I suppose the fix is then to
--- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ pass_walloca::gate (function *fun ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
if (first_time_p)
return warn_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79809
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Yep, -1 is used to identify a value not provided via an argument. If we can get
rid of these minus ones (there are just couple of them), we can swtich to uint?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
