https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83784
Bug ID: 83784
Summary: Missed optimization with bitfield
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 11 05:13:57 2018
New Revision: 256477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83781 - Bootstrap failed on x86 with --with-arch=core
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Wilcox ---
Hi Aldy!
Thanks for looking into this. Yes, I agree, there's no way that GCC can know
this is a constant, but that *should* have been taken care of. Please pardon
me copying and pasting from the original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81703
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81703
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Thu Jan 11 04:37:48 2018
New Revision: 256475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256475&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-11 Martin Sebor
Pratham
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83501
--- Comment #8 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Thu Jan 11 04:37:48 2018
New Revision: 256475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256475&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-11 Martin Sebor
Pratham
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83768
--- Comment #2 from Sergey Organov ---
4.8.3 doesn't have the issue, and I don't have fast access to any 4.9.
So presumably it has been fixed between 5.4.0 and 5.4.1... It'd still be nice
to know if there is some optimization switch in 5.4.0 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 43094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43094&action=edit
Preliminary patch.
I'm testing the attached patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
On i686, it failed with
--prefix=/usr/8.0.0 --enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --enable-shared
--with-demangler-in-ld --enable-libmpx i686-linux --with-fpmath=sse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83653
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The gcc/hsa-dump.c warning doesn't seem to correspond to the latest sources.
hsa_seg_name() returns one of a number of short strings, the longest being
"UNKNOWN_SEGMENT" but the warning says the %s argument c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 43093
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43093&action=edit
x86_64-linux tests summary.
My x864_64 bootstrap and regression test run of the patch succeeded with the
attache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83782
Bug ID: 83782
Summary: Inconsistent address for hidden ifunc in a shared
library
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83778
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Presumably we should simply strip the location from arg, though there are some
places with:
/* Call get_element_number to validate arg1 if it is a constant. */
if (TREE_CODE (arg1) == INTEGER_CST)
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83778
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
It does look like an issue with r256448, but I haven't been able to reproduce
it here yet.
There are 3 in-tree copies of get_element_number, in 3 backends; each has 2
users per backend; they all look like:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79383
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
>
> r256454 is OK and r25646 failed. It may be caused by r256457.
Oops. r256463 failed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, diagnostic
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83781
Bug ID: 83781
Summary: [8 Regression] Bootstrap failed on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83780
Bug ID: 83780
Summary: False positive alignment error with
-fsanitize=undefined with virtual base
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83721
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83779
--- Comment #2 from Walter Spector ---
Ah. Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 82367, which changed state.
Bug 82367 Summary: ICE with deferred length string allocate on non-deferred
length argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82367
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82367
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82367
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 23:55:00 2018
New Revision: 256467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/82367
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82367
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 23:41:48 2018
New Revision: 256466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/82367
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82367
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 23:26:15 2018
New Revision: 256464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256464&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/82367
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iant at google dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82367
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83093
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83093
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 22:50:28 2018
New Revision: 256461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83779
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The manual says:
"This is currently only supported by the Fortran front end, where this option
defaults to false."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83093
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 22:35:00 2018
New Revision: 256459
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256459&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
Backport from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83779
Bug ID: 83779
Summary: Trivial bounds error not detected with -fbounds-check
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83778
Bug ID: 83778
Summary: [8 regression] g++.dg/ext/altivec-cell-2.C fails
starting with r256448
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83671
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83671
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jan 10 21:40:14 2018
New Revision: 256457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83671 - Fix for false positive reported by
-Wstringop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Jan 10 21:39:20 2018
New Revision: 256456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81897
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (convert_control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83777
Bug ID: 83777
Summary: Invalid dependent initialization of a static data
member.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83093
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 21:31:43 2018
New Revision: 256455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83093
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Bug ID: 83776
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a
string literal
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Jan 10 20:49:36 2018
New Revision: 256453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256453&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/83399
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (print_op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #21 from Neil Kindlon ---
Hi,
I regret to report that I encountered what appears to be a similar error in
gcc version 7.1.0. This is my first bug report here, so please correct me if
this information is not helpful or incomplete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83761
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Could you attached preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83508
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Neil Kindlon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neil.kindlon at jax dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> Author: dmalcolm
> Date: Wed Jan 10 19:40:55 2018
> New Revision: 256448
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256448&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> Preserving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 10 19:40:55 2018
New Revision: 256448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Preserving locations for variable-uses and constants (PR c++/43486)
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #20 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This will be in GCC 8.
Backports to GCC 7 are fine with me but I'm not going to do them myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #19 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #18)
> OK, the SH support patch is committed, and the exp directory has been
> removed.
>
> Is there anything else to do here?
I don't think so. But i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #7
> pr83081.f90 looks like a new test so it may not actually be a regression
> related to this patch, but the first two are. pr79041-2 generates:
>
> t:
> mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81535
--- Comment #8 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Any further progress? I see you've posted something, but no further
> follow-ups from you nor Segher.
Jakub, I didn't contribute for few months now due to health
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83775
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #18 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
OK, the SH support patch is committed, and the exp directory has been removed.
Is there anything else to do here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
I tested the patch on my aarch64 box, I got three regressions:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr78733.c scan-assembler adr
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr79041-2.c scan-assembler adr
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I'm pretty sure the testcase from c#16 is a different underlying issue and an
DUP of an existing BZ. Note the ASMs. Jump threading is (overly) conservative
when it encounters an ASM on the path and simply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #18)
> (In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 43056 [details]
> > linux/net/ipv6/route.c, preprocessed and compressed
> >
> > To test t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82841
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82841
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 18:47:44 2018
New Revision: 256445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
Backport r254555 from tru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #17)
> Created attachment 43057 [details]
> linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_bsg.c, preprocessed and compressed
>
> A possibly related warning I just saw this week, with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82841
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 10 18:44:12 2018
New Revision: 256444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-10 Steven G. Kargl
Backport r254555 from tru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #16)
> Created attachment 43056 [details]
> linux/net/ipv6/route.c, preprocessed and compressed
>
> To test the patch, I reverted the workaround that was added to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83775
Bug ID: 83775
Summary: Segfault in arm_declare_function_name()
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
We create an additional clone because the edge that brings the context
now satisfies maybe_hot_p and previously it didn't. The reason is
that the caller (which is called sort) now has frequency
NODE_FREQUENC
/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20180110 (experimental) [trunk revision 256427] (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82392
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83737
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> Most configurations (for which the libc used has a working stdint.h)
> should probably be using use_gcc_stdint=wrap, so that GCC's stdint.h
> includes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80276
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
unique_ptr*>>[]> is shown as:
type = std::unique_ptr >*, std::default_delete >*> >, std::allocator >*, std::default_delete >*> > > > []>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80276
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80481
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
The GCC warning detects several distinct kinds of undefined behavior, most of
which cannot very well be made well-defined. Making changes to the checker
just because a subset of the undefined cases are viewe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #15 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I would like to have the change be a DR. Anyway, I looked at the cast-less
cases, they are in qtransform.h, which is included by at least QImage and
QtGui, so there will be a fair amount of code that wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I understand that, but considering that I plan to convince the committee that
the bit-blasts like Qt does should be well-defined, the warning is a bit eager,
cast or no cast. And since it does break exis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Every GCC release comes with a http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/porting_to.html
(similarly for other releases and we'll have one for gcc-8 too), and especially
with -Werror people need to adjust their codes not just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83773
Bug ID: 83773
Summary: Warning for redefined macro does not have its own
-Wsomething switch
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #11 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The issue is again that users of existing Qt versions will see the warnings,
and they also turn to errors. I can fix the non-casting uses, but I would
recommend removing this warning from -Wall as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82541
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82541
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82541
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 10 17:05:14 2018
New Revision: 256441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82541
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 10 16:59:09 2018
New Revision: 256440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81327
* call.c (maybe_warn_class_memaccess): Add fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83769
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Fixed for GCC 8 via PR 71946.
Note the original bug was reported about inline-asm but the problem was the
same with statement expressions, see comment #6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83772
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71946
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giel+gcc at mortis dot eu
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83769
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83740
--- Comment #7 from G. Steinmetz ---
Thanks for working on this issue, Janne. I will check it
and do some more tests with upcoming snapshot 20180114.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83772
Bug ID: 83772
Summary: ICE in new test case
gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr83081.f90 in
r256423
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
