https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82357
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82357
Bug ID: 82357
Summary: [8 Regression] bogus error: cannot bind bitfield
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
--- Comment #11 from postmas...@openbossa-org.bounceio.net ---
Created attachment 42258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42258&action=edit
attachment-80437-1.eml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
--- Comment #10 from postmas...@openbossa-org.bounceio.net ---
[IMAGE]
There was a problem delivering your email to:
eduardo.abina...@openbossa.org
-
WHAT HAP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82299
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
--- Comment #9 from postmas...@openbossa-org.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient.
Bummer!
What to do next?
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82295
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82103
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81980
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80789
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67165
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67165
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Sep 29 00:30:35 2017
New Revision: 253275
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253275&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/67165
* elf.c (__builtin_prefetch): Define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80511
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79817
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80151
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79292
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80026
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.0.1, 4.2.1|
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80271
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80188
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80070
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71637
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.smets at nokia dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80026
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817
--- Comment #15 from Marc Mutz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Marc Mutz from comment #12)
> > Is replacing a matching comment with __attribute__(fallthrough)) so
> > complicated as to make this a wontfix?
>
> It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78497
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sgunderson at bigfoot dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79750
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Joshua T, Fisher from comment #5)
> and my blog where I first encountered this in a closed source codebase:
>
> http://www.nullterminatedstrings.com/c++/recursive-warning
I'm a bit more persu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49928
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or to put it another way, the premise of this bug:
Only workaround for "-Wundef" is "defined(Macro) && Macro"
is false. There are other workarounds.
Another one is to get rid of the "clever" PLATFORM(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49928
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Johannes Schaub from comment #0)
> It appears that to inhibit a warning about using an undefined macro
> identifier, one has to employ the following work-around
>
> #define FOO BAR
> #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #8)
> >
> > I don't think there is an easy fix for this example. The compiler believes
> > there are 2 distinct values so it uses 2 registers irrespectively of the
> > or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #8 from Qing Zhao ---
>
> I don't think there is an easy fix for this example. The compiler believes
> there are 2 distinct values so it uses 2 registers irrespectively of the order
> of the mov and uxtw.
then, why when there is NO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79346
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78502
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drazen.kacar at tereo dot hr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78183
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65011
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64339
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65834
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Maybe someone might want to put something else after TEST. I think both are
> correct to warn. clang error location might be more useful in some cases
> b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 79488, which changed state.
Bug 79488 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE from lambda that has invalid return type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I see no need to keep it open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Sep 28 21:18:36 2017
New Revision: 253270
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-28 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/79488
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> There's nothing showing the location of the "a = a" expression that requires
> the deleted Y::operator=(const Y&).
IMHO, the problem is the instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82356
Bug ID: 82356
Summary: auto-vectorizing pack of 16->8 has a redundant AND
after a shift
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #6 from Joshua T, Fisher ---
(In reply to Joshua T, Fisher from comment #5)
> https://github.com/nvpro-pipeline/VkHLF/commit/b6646c4773e8aef49c40e8684eca1382bf2e9d50
Apologies this one doesn't apply. Just took another look and I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79488
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82338
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this, especially for reducing the test case. The bug
is not dangerous, it does not result in wrong code generation but it might
result in worse code.
I reproduced it. It seam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #7 from Wilc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77480
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #5)
>
> don’t quite understand your above. what’s your mean by “the mov and uxtw are
> in fact the same instruction”?
In aarch64 assembly mov and uxtw are alias of each o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #5 from Qing Zhao ---
Hi, wilco,
thanks for the comments.
see me reply below:
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 2:13 PM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
>
> --- Comment #4 from Wilco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44515
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
The patch kit I proposed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01744.html
and adds a fix-it hint and improves the location, making the successor token be
a secondary location within the diagno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56973
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 28 19:39:45 2017
New Revision: 253266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/56973, DR 696 - capture constant variables only as needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #4 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #3)
> 1. the zero extension comes from the language standard naturally. for
> aarch64, due to the fact that the register W0 to X0 implicitly zero
> extension, the explicitly zero e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600
--- Comment #12 from Krister Walfridsson ---
Author: kristerw
Date: Thu Sep 28 19:17:51 2017
New Revision: 253263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
Backport from mainline
2017-05-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59793
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|qing.zhao at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64743
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59793
--- Comment #2 from Eugene Zelenko ---
Something like that:
class Class
{
private:
int Data;
public:
int GetData() const;
};
int Class::GetData() const {
return Data;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #3 from Qing Zhao ---
the zero extension "uxtw" insn is generated even without any optimiation, the
additional "mov" insn generated in -O2 is introduced by -fschedule-insns,
please see the following:
***/home/qinzhao/Install/latest/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65253
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58589
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2014-08-20 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59793
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Note: the pertinent extension appears to be documented here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.2.0/gcc/Variable-Length.html#index-parameter-forward-declaration
(see @cindex parameter forward declaration w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82342
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 28 18:35:58 2017
New Revision: 253261
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253261&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82342
* gcc.target/i386/pr82260-1.c: Add -mno-bm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82355
Bug ID: 82355
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in outermost_loop_in_sese, at
sese.c:301
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82354
Bug ID: 82354
Summary: semi-colon instead of comma in parameter list produces
confusing diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81481
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
In IRA we have
(insn 9 8 24 2 (set (reg:V2DI 100 [ MEM[(const __m128i_u * {ref-all})_1] ])
(mem:V2DI (plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 99 [ i ])
(reg:SI 87))
(const:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
--- Comment #5 from Joshua T, Fisher ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> It's rare that my reaction to a -Wunused-parameter warning is to change the
> function to remove the parameter entirely. YMMV.
Totally reasonable, I too rar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> VC++ prints:
>
> main.cpp(7): warning C4297: 'useless::~useless': function assumed not to
> throw an exception but does
> main.cpp(7): note: destructor or dea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Babokin ---
Created attachment 42256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42256&action=edit
original test case
I'm also attaching original test case, just in case. For the bug to reproduce
it's importan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
Bug ID: 82353
Summary: runtime ubsan crash
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
--- Comment #2 from Jaak Ristioja ---
Perhaps the simplest example for x86_64 would be something like:
void f(long a1, long a2, long a3, long a4, long a5, long a6, long a7);
According to the ABI all seven arguments are classified as INTEGER-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O1 produces an extra zero extend.
-O2 and above produces an extra move instruction.
The zero extend is not needed as the add does an implicit zero extend already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
Qing Zhao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qing.zhao at oracle dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
Bug ID: 82352
Summary: link error 'defined in discarded section'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77618
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60523
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77430
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67776
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67276
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-17 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70065
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71852
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
