https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
>
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- Any
> progress on this? We only need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
--- Comment #32 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Seems to be fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82685
--- Comment #4 from Pavel I. Kryukov ---
Created attachment 42455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42455&action=edit
A string_view literal initialization example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82685
--- Comment #3 from Pavel I. Kryukov ---
I faced the problem because Clang-Tidy warns about possible uncaught exception
if I initialize a global static string_view variable.
It seems that Clang-Tidy simply checks whether `noexcept` is specified,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82687
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82684
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82685
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. the compiler already gives the right answer when asked:
#include
using namespace std::literals::string_view_literals;
static_assert(noexcept(""sv"));
So the fact we don't say 'noexcept' doesn't actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82685
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #17 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Dmitry,
That's great. I'll let you know how I get on when I return. I knew
that it had to be a complicated pointer assignment or allocation with
source but couldn't deduce it by de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #49
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Sorokin ---
I added files to reproduce the issue: caller.cpp and callee.cpp are the files
that need to be compiled with different compilers. empty.h is common header.
build.sh is a shell script that compiles and run all f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42451|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
--- Comment #4 from Ivan Sorokin ---
Created attachment 42453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42453&action=edit
build.sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Sorokin ---
Created attachment 42452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42452&action=edit
empty.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Sorokin ---
Created attachment 42450
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42450&action=edit
callee.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Sorokin ---
Created attachment 42451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42451&action=edit
caller.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82693
Bug ID: 82693
Summary: gcc/clang calling convension mismatch
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82688
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> The search button is your friend.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 81926 ***
Oops, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #7)
str(n)cmp with a constant string can be changed into memcmp if the string has a
known alignment or is an array of known size. We should check the common cases
are implemented.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla-gcc@thewrittenword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
Bug ID: 82692
Summary: [8 Regression] Ordered comparisons used for unordered
built-ins
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82691
Bug ID: 82691
Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/graphite/pr82672.f90 fails
with ICE starting with it's introduction in r254009
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82688
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|go |bootstrap
Assignee|ian at a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
> /home/qinzhao/Install/latest/bin/gcc -O2 t_p_1.c t_p.c
> non-inlined version
> 20.84user 0.00system 0:20.83elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> 360maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+135minor)pagefaults 0swap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80449
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82689
Bug ID: 82689
Summary: merging writes of different types to the same location
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80449
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 23 21:37:59 2017
New Revision: 254026
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254026&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-10-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/80449
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82688
Bug ID: 82688
Summary: Bootstrap comparison failure on Solaris 10/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82687
Bug ID: 82687
Summary: [8 regression] g++.dg/asan/default-options-1.C fails
starting with r253914
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82686
--- Comment #2 from Dennis Clarke ---
There may be a hard requirement for the "Boehm-Demers-Weiser conservative
garbage collector" from here : http://www.hboehm.info/gc/
I will have resuls in about ten hours.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82686
Dennis Clarke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dclarke at blastwave dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82686
Bug ID: 82686
Summary: Debian sid powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
4.13.0-1-powerpc64 bootstrap breaks in stage3 with
unexpected requirement for bdw-gc
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 23 20:39:59 2017
New Revision: 254025
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254025&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/82630
* target.def (const_not_ok_for_debug_p): De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82610
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82610
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Oct 23 20:25:58 2017
New Revision: 254024
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254024&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add INCLUDE_UNIQUE_PTR and use it (PR bootstrap/82610)
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #7 from Qing Zhao ---
I have studied the inlining of memcmp and str(n)cmp in GCC, the following are a
summary of my study so far:
1. memcmp is different from str(n)cmp as the following:
• strcmp compares null-termina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #6 from Qing Zhao ---
(A correction to comment 4:
when adding #include , the call to strcmp(s, "a") was inlined by
glibc in the header
with the latest upstream GCC
)
with attached testing case, on GCC farm machine gcc116, I got th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #5 from Qing Zhao ---
Created attachment 42449
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42449&action=edit
Run time performance testing case on aarch64
this is for testing the run-time performance of inlined version of str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80449
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82664
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|WAIT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52451
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #7)
> Shouldn't the new test case have been marked XFAIL for powerpc64 and s390?
> It fails on powerpc64 for sure.
This is up to target maintainer. XFAIL will get the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77369
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 23 19:06:37 2017
New Revision: 254022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77369 - wrong noexcept handling in C++14 and below
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82662
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82662
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Oct 23 19:01:38 2017
New Revision: 254020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82662
* gcc.target/i386/pr82662.c: New t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82685
Bug ID: 82685
Summary: basic_string_view operator""sv(const char*,
size_t) should be noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52451
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82684
Bug ID: 82684
Summary: std::complex template specializations require C99
Complex
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
Bug ID: 82683
Summary: GCC generates bad code with -tune=thunderx2t99
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Probably in grokdeclarator the test for _Atomic-qualified array types
should check declspecs->atomic_p rather than atomicp. (The check in the
parser in the case of _Atomic (type-name) is f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 23 17:47:10 2017
New Revision: 254018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81395 fix crash when write follows large read
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #16 from DIL ---
Hi Paul,
Thanks for looking into this issue. I ran the debugger again. The vtab
corruption occurs upon the first encounter in function VectorIterElement() in
line 720 of gfc_vector.F90. Just to make sure, that line b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81395
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 23 17:16:38 2017
New Revision: 254015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81395 fix crash when write follows large read
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Oct 23 17:03:11 2017
New Revision: 254014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/82681
* c-warn.c (warnings_for_convert_and_check):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
Bug ID: 82682
Summary: [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr50038.c
scan-assembler-times movzbl 2 (found 3 times) since
r253958
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82664
--- Comment #3 from Furkan ---
Created attachment 42447
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42447&action=edit
Other two test cases that are failing as well
Again, sorry about the split submit but I remembered that I've found 2 m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82664
--- Comment #2 from Furkan ---
Created attachment 42446
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42446&action=edit
.ii file for example03
Sorry, about the tar file but .ii file was bigger than 1MB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, I'm fixing those too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I counted five uses of the word "chages" in the original patch.
Seemingly, the word is searched for in output from the testsuite.
$ pwd
/home/dcb/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite
$ fgrep chages `find . -name \*.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi DIL,
On reflection, this is OK and agrees with your diagnosis:
> val_p._vptr = (struct __vtype__STAR * {ref-all}) &__vtab__STAR;
> val_p._len = 0;
> val_p._data = 0B;
> cep._vptr = (struct __vtype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Any progress on this? We only need to partially revert the change it seems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82681
Bug ID: 82681
Summary: c-warn.c:1218: typo in warning message
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622
--- Comment #3 from G. Steinmetz ---
Backtrace for example z2 from comment 1 :
(with new snapshot, configured with --enable-checking=yes)
$ gfortran-8-20171022 -c z2.f90
z2.f90:1:0:
program p
internal compiler error: tree check: expected arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82680
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #4 from olivier.delande.spam at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Sorry, I probably shouldn't have closed this. I guess what we want to
> reject is
>
> typedef int T[10];
> _Atomic T a;
>
> but no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82673
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 23 15:49:19 2017
New Revision: 254013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Skip DF_REF_INSN if DF_REF_INSN_INFO is false
We should chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82680
Bug ID: 82680
Summary: Use cmpXXss and cmpXXsd for setcc boolean compare
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39218
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
--- Comment #2 from olivier.delande.spam at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> GCC is correct here, and this behavior is intentional:
I don't understand. The comment you are quoting mentions detecting
qualificati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 23 14:58:23 2017
New Revision: 254011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82628
* config/i386/predicates.md (x86_64_dwzex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82672
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 23 13:49:24 2017
New Revision: 254009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82672
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82679
Bug ID: 82679
Summary: Uses of typedefs of arrays of _Atomic-qualified types
are rejected
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, infinity0 at pwned dot gg wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
>
> --- Comment #6 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
> What I mean is, even if you do c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82610
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
I posted fxcoudert's patch from comment 0 for review here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01478.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
Sterge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
Sterge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #6 from Sterge ---
Thanks mate and apologies for the spam!
Didn't know that's the version that comes with CentOS 7.
I am closing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82667
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #6 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
What I mean is, even if you do change GCC to fix the unintended optimisation,
other projects' code are *still wrong* - it's only correct if you can assume
the C compiler is optimising your code in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #4 from Sterge ---
Created attachment 42444
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42444&action=edit
preprocessed code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82678
--- Comment #3 from Sterge ---
Created attachment 42443
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42443&action=edit
preprocessed code
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
