https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96187
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|x86_64 |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96192
Bug ID: 96192
Summary: tree-inline.c(copy_decl_for_dup_finish) should
preserve decl alignment in copy
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96191
Bug ID: 96191
Summary: aarch64 stack_protect_test canary leak
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59978
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59978
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96190
Bug ID: 96190
Summary: --enable-default-pie on sparc uses crtbeginS.o
(correct) and crtend.o (incorrect)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81658
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #14 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #13)
> Created attachment 48871 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Attached patch appears sufficient to resolve the issue on the 970 based box
> I have access to.
Mikael,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #13 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 48871
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48871&action=edit
proposed patch
Attached patch appears sufficient to resolve the issue on the 970 based box I
have access to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96173
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I expect there's a speed/space trade-off here. You can use large tables
for the conversions with less computation, or small tables with more
computation (and the BID implementation in libg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86268
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85942
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86148
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91022
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69654
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92959
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88632
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Is it a fortran bug or a bug in a Solaris lib?
>
> The latter, I suspect (or rather: the Studio compiler used to build
> them). However, I'd like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is it a fortran bug or a bug in a Solaris lib?
The latter, I suspect (or rather: the Studio compiler used to build
them). However, I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92976
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88247
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96189
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
PS : The extraneous movzx is already reported at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96176
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93701
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31593
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The assignee is Tobias Schlüter, but the PR is not marked as assigned.
Is Tobias still interested? If no, the PR should be unassigned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96189
Bug ID: 96189
Summary: Failure to use eflags from cmpxchg on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb41624df3bfee5dd4183738f57e1cf54a2a32eb
commit r10-8485-geb41624df3bfee5dd4183738f57e1cf54a2a32eb
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96001
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8475641c2160262a33c553eee158f075c990fab7
commit r10-8482-g8475641c2160262a33c553eee158f075c990fab7
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e14149f66edebe16c48aeddb4c1f1abd00874eed
commit r10-8484-ge14149f66edebe16c48aeddb4c1f1abd00874eed
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c24e8063ef5f4a462bedb1f8f71409c8116b26b0
commit r10-8486-gc24e8063ef5f4a462bedb1f8f71409c8116b26b0
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94791
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e14149f66edebe16c48aeddb4c1f1abd00874eed
commit r10-8484-ge14149f66edebe16c48aeddb4c1f1abd00874eed
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e5bb3ce7c784844b1e14b754b58dee08ed5bac8
commit r10-8487-g7e5bb3ce7c784844b1e14b754b58dee08ed5bac8
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #11 from AJM ---
Thanks for all your suggestions, they're very helpful!
>'-falign-commons'
> By default, 'gfortran' enforces **proper** alignment of all variables
> in a 'COMMON' block by padding them as needed...
I am not s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95151
Bug 95151 depends on bug 95443, which changed state.
Bug 95443 Summary: cmpstrnqi patterns update string length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95443
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95789
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
// PR c++/96179
template struct vector
{
void push_back(T) { }
};
struct dummy{
int a;
};
void Modify_Dummy(dummy &d){
d.a=1;
}
template void Templated_Function(){
vector A;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95789
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 96179 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96179
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95443
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95443
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9cba898481368ce16c6a2d30ef781a82dce27c55
commit r11-2068-g9cba898481368ce16c6a2d30ef781a82dce27c55
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Jul 13 10:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96169
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-13
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95270
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Julian Brown
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2974e1eee053496e1d43f7f2e62f5feac2aa0315
commit r10-8475-g2974e1eee053496e1d43f7f2e62f5feac2aa0315
Author: Julian Brown
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95288
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95288
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a9a3434c7396ea14c8f9c291694faea382c36dc
commit r11-2067-g6a9a3434c7396ea14c8f9c291694faea382c36dc
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to AJM from comment #8)
> If you really need to know, on the C side there is a struct with fields that
> match the order and size of the variables in the common statement / module
> declaration. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12)
> Wow, this works! Mine :-)
Hi Segher, did you ever commit anything to help here? Ie, can we mark this as
fixed or is it still an open issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95288
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|fxue at gcc dot gnu.org|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d03c0ee5213703ec6d9ffa632fa5298d83adaaa
commit r10-8472-g0d03c0ee5213703ec6d9ffa632fa5298d83adaaa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:44:13PM +, amelvill at umich dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
>
> --- Comment #8 from AJM ---
> > > >> I won't comment on the questionable pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:776e48e0931db69f158f40e5cb8e15463d879a42
commit r11-2066-g776e48e0931db69f158f40e5cb8e15463d879a42
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92488
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Bug ID: 96188
Summary: -Wstringop-overflow false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #10 from Jiarui Hong ---
Please note that there seems to be two issues here that affect different
versions of gcc:
(From the comment of g...@pkh.me)
https://godbolt.org/z/xc59TM
This fails in 9.3.0 but works in 10.1.0.
(From the com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94393
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #3)
> There are two parts to fixing this PR.
> 1) We can do better in the sequences generated for some constants.
> 2) rs6000_rtx_costs needs to be accurate, so that expen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #8 from AJM ---
> > >> I won't comment on the questionable programming idiom of placing
> > >> a common block in a module, which kind of defeats the niceties of
> > >> a module.
> > > If somebody wants to transition your code from usi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45337
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bae66e0f04323ba9d5daf60fcb997de925100e3e
commit r11-2065-gbae66e0f04323ba9d5daf60fcb997de925100e3e
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e4c9ebbab7bec3b5994f85aebce13bf37cf46e9
commit r10-8471-g5e4c9ebbab7bec3b5994f85aebce13bf37cf46e9
Author: Martin Sebor
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed for GCC 10.2 and 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30529e2faa482bc749c65a490763dbc2ccaf63ac
commit r10-8470-g30529e2faa482bc749c65a490763dbc2ccaf63ac
Author: Marek Polacek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fd124a23664c712f1bb1a7e91fa23fe83d72c0b
commit r11-2064-g4fd124a23664c712f1bb1a7e91fa23fe83d72c0b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96187
Bug ID: 96187
Summary: GCC at -O2 generates branch for code that should be
branch-free
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
files with growth:
obj/gcc/calls.c.325t.statistics:320 4958 | 5571
obj/gcc/prefix.c.325t.statistics:320 115 | 118
yes, that's all of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 01:42:29PM +, amelvill at umich dot edu wrote:
>
> As far as workarounds go, if it came to that I'd rather just make a dummy
> "debug" function that stored these common variables as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96163
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4facd483de2d5b6b4d20e6ad74c85b9f1eba41a
commit r11-2062-gc4facd483de2d5b6b4d20e6ad74c85b9f1eba41a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48869
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48869&action=edit
alternate patch
OK, I have another patch that reduces the overall number of visited blocks
in stage3 gcc/*.o b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96186
Bug ID: 96186
Summary: [11 regressoion] ICE: Unrecognizable insn since
r11-1970-fab263ab0fc10ea08409b80afa7e8569438b8d28
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:23:58PM +, amelvill at umich dot edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
>
> --- Comment #4 from AJM ---
> >> I won't comment on the questionable program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95981
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f069011019c9df670969ea283fd4d139f34a925
commit r11-2061-g3f069011019c9df670969ea283fd4d139f34a925
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #5 from AJM ---
Also, in case it wasn't clear,
> Breakpoint 2, boo () at a.f90:9
> 9 write(*, '(A, I3)') "moduleVar=", n
> (gdb) p n
> $2 = 123
> (gdb) p moduleVar
> No symbol "moduleVar" in current context.
> (gdb) p (integ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96170
--- Comment #2 from Will Wray ---
A much better idea, submitted here as bug 96185
and simultaneously submitted to Clang and MSVC -
a portable builtin to count bindings in [dcl.struct.bind]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96185
--- Comment #1 from Will Wray ---
Clang ticket https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46704
MSVC ticket
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/idea/203/enhancement-please-add-a-builtin-to-count-bindings.html#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96185
Bug ID: 96185
Summary: Enhancement: Please add a builtin to count bindings in
[dcl.struct.bind]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
--- Comment #17 from Ian McInerney ---
I think that r11-1899 is the more important one to backport, since that will
also allow for warnings that are generated by headers inside "-isystem" include
directories to not have the notes printed without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96179
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a391e06f953c3390b14020d8cacb6d55f81b2b9
commit r11-2059-g6a391e06f953c3390b14020d8cacb6d55f81b2b9
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94791
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
commit r11-2056-g463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2bc95be3bb8c8138e2e87c1c11c84bfede989d61
commit r11-2057-g2bc95be3bb8c8138e2e87c1c11c84bfede989d61
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b097c7a27fb0796b2653a1d003cbf6b7a69d8961
commit r11-2058-gb097c7a27fb0796b2653a1d003cbf6b7a69d8961
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
commit r11-2056-g463a54e5d4956143f81c1f23b91cbd2d93855741
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95114
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5834e96a08fd8b86a42428f38a95903d2f1de202
commit r11-2055-g5834e96a08fd8b86a42428f38a95903d2f1de202
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96184
Bug ID: 96184
Summary: GCC treats "use of local variable with automatic
storage from containing function" differently in
versions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So we could do something like:
--- gcc/cp/decl.c.jj2020-07-09 11:27:51.088908783 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/decl.c 2020-07-13 14:34:59.887259561 +0200
@@ -17164,7 +17164,9 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96183
Bug ID: 96183
Summary: GCC accepts "convert '' from 'void'
to 'int'" at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #4 from AJM ---
>> I won't comment on the questionable programming idiom of placing
>> a common block in a module, which kind of defeats the niceties of
>> a module.
> If somebody wants to transition your code from using common blocks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or another possible wording would be that a constexpr function which is not a
valid constant expression for all possible parameter values is invalid.
I believe such wording is there for templates and instead
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
