https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #26 from Murat Ursavaş ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #21)
> (In reply to Murat Ursavaş from comment #20)
> > By the way, the hardware peripheral registers are aligned to 32bits.
>
> So why don't you define your struc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #25 from Murat Ursavaş ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #24)
> (In reply to Murat Ursavaş from comment #6)
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > I just wanted a dramatic entrance :) (There was a discussion about GCC
> > bugzilla on red
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41299
--- Comment #6 from postmas...@aybabtu-com.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Oh
no!
What to do next?
Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37949
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #6 from Eric Galla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46524
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41299
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2009-09-09 22:35:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69697
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81809
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80681
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78157
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87358
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a reduced testcase:
void f(unsigned char timestamp, unsigned char * a)
{
while (1)
{
int check = (timestamp && *a);
if (__builtin_expect((check == 0),1)) continue;
}
}
CUT ---
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 29931, which changed state.
Bug 29931 Summary: following argv[0] symlink in process_command breaks
symlinked-together toolchain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87389
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Specifically, the not-taken branch of an if constexpr is only discarded when
inside a template. In a non-template both branches are compiled as normal, and
so both static assertions get compiled. Since both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87389
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It would be better to highlight the whole condition:
87386.cc:4:15: error: static assertion failed: eee
4 | static_assert(foo::test::value, "eee");
| ^
Which is what a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #27 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Interesting: when I run with checking flags, I get the following error:
At line 532 of file evt_nlo.f90
Fortran runtime error: Array bound mismatch for dimension 1 of array
'event_deps' (0/2)
However, I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87270
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #3)
> It seems that finalization has never occurred with any branch for this case,
I don't fully agree with this statement.
Apart from the fact that gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87135
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Sep 21 20:39:07 2018
New Revision: 264494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-21 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/87135
* sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87389
Bug ID: 87389
Summary: if constexpr not working properly with static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87388
Bug ID: 87388
Summary: Feature request: header-only -Wc++-compat
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81035
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87387
Bug ID: 87387
Summary: runk/gcc/builtins.c:585:7: warning: explicitly
assigning value of variable of type 'tree' (aka
'tree_node *') to itself [-Wself-assign]
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64089
--- Comment #21 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm fine with Backporting for affected branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
--- Comment #1 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
btw how reduce "Importance" of this bug?
Right now it have same level as bug that could break my code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81035
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
Author: fw
Date: Fri Sep 21 19:49:36 2018
New Revision: 264490
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264490&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Document that attribute noreturn inhibits tail call optimization
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
Bug ID: 87386
Summary: Error message for static_assert show wrong range
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87385
Bug ID: 87385
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation shouldn't warn for labels
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87384
Bug ID: 87384
Summary: Likely syntax error not reported as such
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
hmm...
Linux:
$ more lib.s
.file "lib.cc"
.text
.weak _ZN1AIiE6memberE
.section
.bss._ZN1AIiE6memberE,"awG",@nobits,_ZN1AIiE6memberE,comdat
.align 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87372
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #26 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Jeurgen,
We are extremely pleased that you do follow developments on trunk. It
really helps to catch regressions early, while the changes are fresh
in mind :-)
Sometime, I would appr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87372
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Sep 21 18:45:59 2018
New Revision: 264489
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264489&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87372 - __func__ constexpr evaluation.
* constex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #25 from Jürgen Reuter ---
This is the part from the test-suite.log for the 4 failures, they are all in
one particular feature of our code, so I am pretty sure that this is only one
remaining open issue:
| Starting simulation for proc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #24 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Paul, enjoy your time in Wales. Maybe this other issue wasn't caused by r263916
but by something else (though it must have been also in the past 2-3 weeks).
What our functional tests do: they call a code gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #23 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #21)
> In our functional test suite, the tests nlo_4, nlo_5, fks_res_1 and another
> test are still failing, they lead to segmentation faults. This will be
> really diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #22 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #20)
> Paul, thanks for the fix, our code test suite is still running, most of the
> problems are solved, the unit test suite is completely good now, but there
> are cer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87379
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
In our functional test suite, the tests nlo_4, nlo_5, fks_res_1 and another
test are still failing, they lead to segmentation faults. This will be really
difficult to isolate, but maybe this is a different r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87381
--- Comment #5 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org ---
Here is the problem, reduced to the simplest expression I could make:
-
template
struct test_template {
static int size() { return x; }
};
constexpr int ce_strlen(char const *s)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87383
Bug ID: 87383
Summary: improve text and detail in -Wstringop-truncation
warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87382
Bug ID: 87382
Summary: warn for strncpy with a bound greater than the size of
source array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
--- Comment #2 from Will Wray ---
Created attachment 44735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44735&action=edit
Test for enumerator id pretty print patch
pp_enum_test
auto_name returns std::array, splitting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77325
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Sep 21 17:33:29 2018
New Revision: 264486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264486&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/77325
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87381
--- Comment #4 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org ---
Given the new way of looking at things prompted by the correction of my
erroneous idea, I've rethought how to simplify this, and the simplification
does work in gcc 8.2, and I think is gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Juergen,
Thanks for doing the reduction of the problem and thanks to Dominique for
testing the patch.
Fixed.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Sep 21 17:26:23 2018
New Revision: 264485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/87359
* trans-stmt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87381
--- Comment #3 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org ---
Ahh, I guess that does make sense. Oh, well. I guess I'm stuck using template
arguments in place of function arguments in some cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87381
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to eric-bugs from comment #1)
> Godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/gHnb-G
>
> Also, my attempt to simplify this failed because clang will not consider
> arguments to constexpr functions to be co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364
--- Comment #1 from Will Wray ---
Created attachment 44734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44734&action=edit
Fix to pretty-print enumerator ids
c-pretty-print.c
c_pretty_printer::constant(tree)
Remove fall through f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87381
--- Comment #1 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org ---
Godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/gHnb-G
Also, my attempt to simplify this failed because clang will not consider
arguments to constexpr functions to be constexpr. Which, IMHO, is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #16 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Dominique,
Many thanks for coming back so promptly. I will package it up for a
commit this evening.
Best regards
Paul
On 21 September 2018 at 17:12, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
fudging the static member to be weak, and rebuilding the lib - the test
completes w/out throwing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87381
Bug ID: 87381
Summary: clang 6.0 will compile this constexpr construct, but
gcc 8.2.1 will not.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
On GNU/Linux the symbol in the shared library is a global unique symbol:
$ nm --defined-only -g liblib.so | grep member
0020101c u _ZN1AIiE6memberE
It seems that we need to make it weak to ensure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The following should run and exit successfully:
$ cat lib.h
template
struct A {
static T member;
};
template
T A::member;
bool match(int*);
$ cat lib.cc
#include "lib.h"
template class A;
bool matc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Could you please test the attached patch?
The patch fixes both the reduced and the original tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87372
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to eric-bugs from comment #4)
> Should I file a new bug with my new comment in it? I should probably test
> against a trunk with your change in it first.
Please open a separate PR for the issue in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87372
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87379
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've opened Bug 87380
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> The response from Apple quoted in 82172 comment 26 says that explicit
That should have said Bug 82172 comment 26.
The problem only arises when a template mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #23 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #22)
> Or
> #pragma pack(push, 1)
>
> struct TestStructType
> {
> volatile unsigned one;
> unsigned char two;
> unsigned short three;
> } __attribute__(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #22 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Or
#pragma pack(push, 1)
struct TestStructType
{
volatile unsigned one;
unsigned char two;
unsigned short three;
} __attribute__((aligned(32)));
#pragma pack(pop)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
Bug ID: 87380
Summary: Explicit instantations should use weak symbols on
darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #21 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Murat Ursavaş from comment #20)
> By the way, the hardware peripheral registers are aligned to 32bits.
So why don't you define your struct as
struct TestStructType
{
volatile unsigned o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #20 from Murat Ursavaş ---
By the way, the hardware peripheral registers are aligned to 32bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #19 from Murat Ursavaş ---
Hi Richard,
This source code had been designed to see word by word access and may create
expected results. I'm not sure about that.
Let me use latest stable and see what happens. It wasn't plug and play la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87379
Bug ID: 87379
Summary: Warn about function pointer casts which differ in
variadic-ness
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87378
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87309
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87309
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #18 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> Yes please.
bug 87378
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87378
Bug ID: 87378
Summary: False -Wredundant-move (derived vs. base)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87309
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Sep 21 14:17:07 2018
New Revision: 264481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264481&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
dumpfile.c: fix stray dump_loc output (PR tree-optimization/87309)
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #18 from Richard Earnshaw ---
BTW, are you really trying to say that your hardware has a register that isn't
naturally aligned? That's really weird if so. If not, there are much easier
ways to handle this sort of stuff.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87374
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Murat Ursavaş from comment #16)
> OK I understand conservative action and not wait for word by word access.
> But the resulting value is not 0x401 on the test case, but it should be.
Is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87377
Bug ID: 87377
Summary: error with generic lambda accessing static field
through argument within return type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
I started working on this, but it's not easy to register dummy global
variables. If I see correctly, global vars are emitted into assembly here:
#0 assemble_variable (decl=, top_level=0,
at_end=1, dont_outpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #16 from Murat Ursavaş ---
OK I understand conservative action and not wait for word by word access. But
the resulting value is not 0x401 on the test case, but it should be.
In my original case this was effecting a USART peripheral r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Murat Ursavaş from comment #12)
> Richard,
>
> Ok I remembered things with reading the old posts on launchpad. The compiler
> was generating normal code if I use the struct variable directly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87373
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Murat Ursavaş from comment #13)
> Richard,
>
> Also as far as I remember GNU manual was indeed saying something on this
> case. It was saying that "if the struct is not packed, it would acce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
--- Comment #16 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #15)
> I see that with the fix from comment 13 included, the slightly changed source
>
> #include
> struct S1 { S1(S1 &&); };
> struct S2: S1 {};
> S1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
Bug ID: 87376
Summary: [avr] Miscompilation with __memx and long long
addition
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
