https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90175
Bug ID: 90175
Summary: ambiguous wording "critical attribute" in diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46200|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90163
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
> Clang... suggests placing the ";" on a different line to silence
> the warning:
>
>
> warning: if statement has empty body [-Wempty-body]
> if(a);
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #73 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Okay, the requirement is only to be able to boot-strap with
a released gcc version, so gcc-8 should not use the pragma,
while gcc-9 should use the pagma.
I was able to bootstrap from x86_64 -> arm cross ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #72 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I use host Compiler from last week:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ed/gnu/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libexec/gcc/armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/9.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #71 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I am sorry, but my native arm bootstrap Fails:
g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -I../../gcc-trunk-r270444/gcc/../libgcc
-DEH_MECHANISM_arm -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
-fasynchr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90174
Bug ID: 90174
Summary: Bad register spill due to top-down allocation order
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64122
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173
Bug ID: 90173
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
strip_declarator_types)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90172
Bug ID: 90172
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
contains_struct_check)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90171
Bug ID: 90171
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in build_op_delete_call, at
cp/call.c:6630
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90170
Bug ID: 90170
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in unify, at cp/pt.c:22209
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90169
Bug ID: 90169
Summary: allocatable character in type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90168
Bug ID: 90168
Summary: Unstable register allocation result for same source
code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 01:09:25AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> This survives regression testing, but boy is it ugly.
>
> Index: decl.c
> =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90164
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 12:01:55AM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
>
> --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90165
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:55:51PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
>
> --- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
> ndex: decl.c
> =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
--- Comment #1 from Steve Kargl ---
ndex: decl.c
===
--- decl.c (revision 270181)
+++ decl.c (working copy)
@@ -7598,6 +7598,13 @@ gfc_match_subroutine (void)
if (m != M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90167
Bug ID: 90167
Summary: invalid example in GCC documentation wrt. effective
type rules
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79405
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|bergner at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #55 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Apr 18 22:14:17 2019
New Revision: 270448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/87871
* ira-lives.c (make_object_de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90166
Bug ID: 90166
Summary: Compiler Fails at Assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79878
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 79878 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90165
Bug ID: 90165
Summary: std::variant constructs wrong alternative
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78113
--- Comment #5 from Nir Friedman ---
Jonathan, I saw you just change the status of this. Michael Park's and I work
has resulted in a different implementation of std::visit which has much better
codegen; also backed by performance numbers. This al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081
--- Comment #10 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #9)
Thanks, appreciate the explanation. I guess I'm less willing to trust that the
interpretation that makes sense is the one that's intended, but I can s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90037
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So results from playing with do_rpo_vn.
Running do_rpo_vn on the full function is slower than lattice cprop. It's on
the order of a percent or two. I mostly did this because it was trivial to
code up, ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, harald at gigawatt dot nl wrote:
> > I think expanding the macro to its argument is clearly correct here,
> > including for UINT8_C, as the interpretation suggested in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081
--- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> No, INT8_C(5) must expand to have type int, not int_least8_t, if
> int_least8_t promotes to int. See 7.20.4#3, "The type of the expression
> shall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89797
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Apr 18 20:26:07 2019
New Revision: 270447
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270447&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89797 - ICE on a vector_size (1LU << 33) int variable
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90148
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
From m68k.c:
error ("%<-mpcrel%> %<-fPIC%> is not currently supported on selected cpu");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90162
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90164
Bug ID: 90164
Summary: wrong tense in ABI change diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90158
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||90156
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019, bafap5 at yahoo dot com wrote:
> int x = sizeof ((int8_t) 5); /* Correct, gives 1 */
> int y = sizeof (INT8_C(5)); /* Incorrect, gives 4 */
No, INT8_C(5) must expa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90163
Bug ID: 90163
Summary: untranslated placeholder in
warn_once_call_ms2sysv_xlogues
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90156
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90162
Bug ID: 90162
Summary: exclamation mark in diagnostic!
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: transla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
From gcn.c, one more:
error ("duplicated parameter specifier %s in amdgpu_hsa_kernel "
"attribute", str);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 07:48:25PM +, perini at wisc dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
>
> --- Comment #4 from federico ---
> uhm so that is my fault, I guess - sorry abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90161
Bug ID: 90161
Summary: GCC does not always dllexport constexpr member
variables in C++17 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87651
--- Comment #5 from Ryan R Haining ---
Failing on 8.3.0 https://wandbox.org/permlink/69kAYkUWgFD5TTxs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90158
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
From gcn.c:
error ("unknown specifier %s in amdgpu_hsa_kernel attribute", str);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87652
--- Comment #7 from Ryan R Haining ---
Still fails in 8.3.0 https://wandbox.org/permlink/69kAYkUWgFD5TTxs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
--- Comment #4 from federico ---
uhm so that is my fault, I guess - sorry about that.
Apparently this is what the FORTRAN standard features. Still, I’m a bit
confused that the P descriptor produces only a format change with the E format,
while l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 07:27:31PM +, perini at wisc dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
>
> --- Comment #2 from federico ---
> Number b=10.0, so in format f8.3 it should a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
From csky.c:
warning (0, "cpu %s is not based on arch %s, ignoring the arch",
csky_selected_cpu->name, csky_selected_arch->name);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90160
Bug ID: 90160
Summary: missing quote in diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
--- Comment #2 from federico ---
Number b=10.0, so in format f8.3 it should always be output as “ 10.000” ?
Federico Perini
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 8:46:19 PM
To: Federico
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90148
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
From arm-builtins.c:
fatal_error (input_location,
"You must enable NEON instructions"
" (e.g. %<-mfloat-abi=softfp%> %<-mfpu=neon%>)"
" to use th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90159
Bug ID: 90159
Summary: Poor warning for an ambiguous reference
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #70 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, thanks, now switching to your latest patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #54 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #52)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #48)
> > With just Peter's and Jakub's patch, it *improves* code size by 0.090%.
> > That does not fix this PR though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #53 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #51)
> In the more general case splitting this would produce worse code, not
> better, since then we'd end up with two instructions rather than one.
Sure, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90156
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
To fix bug 90158 thoroughly, please also add \"%s\" to the forbidden string
literals.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90158
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
The above are not the only occurrences in aarch64.c, there is at least one
more. It's easy to find: \"%s\" or a simple %s surrounded by spaces on both
ends.
See also bug 90156.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46198|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90158
Bug ID: 90158
Summary: aarch64: wrong quotation in diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90157
Bug ID: 90157
Summary: aarch64: unnecessary abbreviation in diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #68 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 46200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46200
updated patch
I believe the second hunk in libgo/runtime/go-unwind.c is incorrect, that is on
code not guarded with #if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90156
Bug ID: 90156
Summary: add linter check suggesting to replace %<%s%> with %qs
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
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=90155
Bug ID: 90155
Summary: aarch64: too much quoting in diagnostic for %d
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90154
Bug ID: 90154
Summary: aarch64: insufficient check for
aarch64_stack_protector_guard_reg_str
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90153
Bug ID: 90153
Summary: aarch64: unclear diagnostic for stack-protector
options
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90152
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #0)
> Instead of this comment, it would be better to pass the untranslated msgstr
> to print_z_candidate by enclosing the actual string literals with _(...).
Oops, I mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90118
--- Comment #5 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #3)
> When running the script, it warned in 3 more occurrences in gcc/cp/call.c,
> which I updated too.
By reading the code, I think these instances are correct since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90152
Bug ID: 90152
Summary: untranslated strings in print_z_candidate
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90132
--- Comment #7 from Jason Mancini ---
Okay! The patch in Comment #1 worked for me. Someone else can fix or reject as
it's not an important bug then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90151
Bug ID: 90151
Summary: 554.roms_r regression on x86_64 at -O2 and generic
march/mtune
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87554
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > The constructor indeed looks broken to me: it should not have naked
> > var_decl. So I am changing component to C++
>
> I agree that the C++ front end is wrong here, but I also wonder why cgraph is
> look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually it was reported by you :)
PR 79878
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87554
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] internal |[8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90150
Bug ID: 90150
Summary: wrong output produced by float format fX.Y descriptor
following translated scientific format XpeY.Z
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #52 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #48)
> With just Peter's and Jakub's patch, it *improves* code size by 0.090%.
> That does not fix this PR though :-/
But it does fix most of the codesize regression. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85051
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Apr 18 17:03:00 2019
New Revision: 270446
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270446&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/85051
* ipa-inline.c (flatten_function): New param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90037
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So another update and a rather surprising one at that.
One of the things that is clear is that we need to do some kind of cleanup
between DOM and erroneous path isolation. Furthermore, the existing cleanu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is recorded as a different bug report. I think that one was reported by
me. I will find it latertoday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #67 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46200&action=edit
updated patch
So, that is what I am going to bootstrap now.
Adds a libgo patch and some minor changes, mostly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87554
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 18 16:50:10 2019
New Revision: 270445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87554 - ICE with extern template and reference member.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig ---
Just another remark:
The words "BIT_FIELD_REF of non-mode-precision operand" do not occur anywhere
in the test suite. They should. Or did I miss something?
If this is meant to be unreachable code, it should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Bug ID: 90149
Summary: diagnostics containing BIT_FIELD_REF don't conform to
diagnostics guideline
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #51 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #50)
> The insn is
>
> (insn 7 3 8 2 (parallel [
> (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
> (compare:CC (reg:SI 0 r0 [116])
> (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #50 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The insn is
(insn 7 3 8 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:CC 100 cc)
(compare:CC (reg:SI 0 r0 [116])
(const_int 0 [0])))
(set (reg/v:SI 4 r4 [orig:112
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #49 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #47)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #46)
> > With all three patches together (Peter's, mine, Jakub's), I get a code size
> > increase of only 0.047%, much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
--- Comment #48 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With just Peter's and Jakub's patch, it *improves* code size by 0.090%.
That does not fix this PR though :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm tempted to just rip out this stuff entirely, and go back to only offering
the strong exception safety guarantee for trivially copyable types, and so
variants would only be never-valueless if all altern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90148
Bug ID: 90148
Summary: Closing quote in wrong position in plugin.c
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: transla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90142
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please send patches to the mailing list, not to bugzilla:
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
