https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57612
David L. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||equinox-gccbugs at diac24 dot
net
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99622
Bug ID: 99622
Summary: Materialized temporary is not usable in a constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/M4Ya9h
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97926
--- Comment #2 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
patch_jump_insn() is running into a land mine -- the insn before modification
is invalid:
(gdb) p insn_invalid_p(insn, true)
$4 = 1
(gdb) pr insn
(jump_insn 18 17 114 6 (set (pc)
(if_the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5-11 REGRESSION] [bisected |[8,9,10,11 REGRESSION]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #1 from William Bader ---
Created attachment 50403
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50403&action=edit
Data file that the test program reads.
postscript test file compressed with bzip2.
It needs to be uncompresses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Bug ID: 99621
Summary: [5-11 REGRESSION] [bisected to
058e97ecf33ad0dfd926b3876a4bcf59ac9556ff] regression
with -m32 -O1 -fcaller-saves -fexpensive-optimizations
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99542
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2a6e9214e27b32d4582c670faf9cdb74e54c2c6
commit r11-7698-ga2a6e9214e27b32d4582c670faf9cdb74e54c2c6
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The check in interface.c:gfc_check_result_characteristics has an asymmetry
coming from symbol.c:gfc_type_compatible that could be evaded by swapping
arguments:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99587
--- Comment #6 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #4)
> > For retain, something along these lines might work:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c b/gcc/c-family/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92442
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99610
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And if that is the case, there is also easy workaround, just use unsigned int
Hash instead of unsigned Hash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99610
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98555
--- Comment #5 from Rich Felker ---
Ping. Could this be solved without the need for target-specific logic by, in
some earlier layer, transforming entirely empty function bodies to
__builtin_trap()? (And thereby relying on the target's implementat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch in comment#6 generates an unexpected error:
pr99138.f90:11:2:
11 | module function f(x)
| 1
Error: Type mismatch in function result (CLASS(STAR)/CLASS(*)) between the
MODULE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> Cool, thanks for the quick reaction, Paul. Maybe Harald can have a look at
> it as well :D
LGTM. It's by Paul. He simply needs to get the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99588
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||89180
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Bug 92860 depends on bug 99592, which changed state.
Bug 99592 Summary: arm: internal compiler error using arm_neon.h with -pg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0251051db64f13c9a31a05c8133c31dc50b2b235
commit r11-7696-g0251051db64f13c9a31a05c8133c31dc50b2b235
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99108
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99563
--- Comment #5 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Thanks. Will there be a fix in branch 10?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99563
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] Code |[10 Regression] Code
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99432
Bug 99432 depends on bug 99422, which changed state.
Bug 99422 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn building glibc
pthread_create
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98092
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0b5843a9b2b3e93bd119d5aef583f53ad2ef0bc
commit r11-7695-ga0b5843a9b2b3e93bd119d5aef583f53ad2ef0bc
Author: Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98092
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50040|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE in |[11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d55ce33a34a8e33d17285228b32cf1e564241a70
commit r11-7694-gd55ce33a34a8e33d17285228b32cf1e564241a70
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
>From the offending patch:
-/* Return true if the eliminated form of AD is a legitimate target address.
*/
+/* Return true if the eliminated form of AD is a legitimate target address.
+ If OP is a ME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
--- Comment #1 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99620
Bug ID: 99620
Summary: Subtract with borrow (SBB) missed optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The test case:
$ (set -x && cat pr99612.C && g++ -O2 -S -Wall --std=c++20 -O2 -Wall
-Winvalid-memory-model pr99612.C && g++ -O2 -S -Wall --std=c++20 -O2 -Wall
-Winvalid-memory-model -Wsystem-headers pr99612.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-16
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #29 from Yongwei Wu ---
As usual, test results are always elusive. I have to add yet another important
piece of information. The very bad performance result does not occur on Linux,
but only on macOS (Homebrew versions of GCC and liba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98078
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27dca33bc5c52971c00d1657560aeabae8f35d18
commit r10-9449-g27dca33bc5c52971c00d1657560aeabae8f35d18
Author: Martin Jambor
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50398|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93031
Vladislav Valtchev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladislav.valtchev at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99619
Bug ID: 99619
Summary: fails to infer local-dynamic TLS model from hidden
visibility
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99108
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
@Jason: Do you tend to backport the fix? Or can we close as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98099
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99108
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c7bec8bfbc5457c1b57d0e3b67f5d6bc8812e57
commit r11-7693-g1c7bec8bfbc5457c1b57d0e3b67f5d6bc8812e57
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99606
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm getting
DWARF error: invalid abstract instance DIE ref
error instead. Weird.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
I think for the non-dependent case there's no good fix but the standard can be
read in a way that only the dependent case has well-defined order of
destruction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> Thanks Vladimir. It is indeed a problem in LRA (or triggered by it).
> We have
> 8: {[r121:DI+low(unspec[`*.LANCHOR0',%2:DI]
> 47+0x92a4)]=asm_operan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50399
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50399&action=edit
gcc11-pr99613.patch
Untested patch that swaps the two calls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> > > Oldest compiler version have tried it one is 8.4.0, and there's an ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
I think I added OEP_LEXICOGRAPHIC specifically for -Wduplicated-branches
(do_warn_duplicated_branches used it first), so we can have it do whatever we
want for the warning. So your change looks fine to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> > Oldest compiler version have tried it one is 8.4.0, and there's an ICE there
> > as well.
>
> On Darwin16 : ICE back to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98099
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
Jake Hemstad changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jacobhemstad at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #14 from Michal Zientkiewicz ---
https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.start.term#3
If the completion of the constructor or dynamic initialization of an object
with static storage duration strongly happens before that of another, the
complet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99224
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e9c43ce0d7b5ef1a1f11bf91d1a06614460b7d8
commit r10-9448-g7e9c43ce0d7b5ef1a1f11bf91d1a06614460b7d8
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99253
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65767abfdc07547b5435083a5af6ab085e013a4d
commit r10-9447-g65767abfdc07547b5435083a5af6ab085e013a4d
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Bug 92860 depends on bug 99592, which changed state.
Bug 99592 Summary: arm: internal compiler error using arm_neon.h with -pg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
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=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:408d137027b1c39546d39fdbca7347b3dddba8ea
commit r11-7691-g408d137027b1c39546d39fdbca7347b3dddba8ea
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99296
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99466
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-03-08 00:00:00 |2021-3-16
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
Luc Van Oostenryck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99618
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #12 from Michal Zientkiewicz ---
As a side note - Clang emits the call to atexit between acquire and release and
the last demo works fine when compiled with Clang, but not GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #11 from Michal Zientkiewicz ---
Created attachment 50396
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50396&action=edit
Demo with dependent variables
I added a new demo which shows that dependent variable gets destroyed afte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99618
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, so the linker complains that .debug_macro refers to COMDAT .debug_macro
which is discarded. Quite possibly the linker misses special-casing of
.debug_macro because it's called .gnu.debuglto_.debug_macr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Boyce at engineer dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99609
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
--- Comment #6 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 50395
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50395&action=edit
preprocessed /usr/lib/gcc-cross/arm-linux-gnueabihf/11/include/arm_neon.h
I've changed from the Ubuntu gcc-11 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even the swapping of the two calls would be IMHO a significant slowdown.
Because __cxa_atexit under the hood holds a global lock (fortunately not across
the duration of the whole user ctor, but across the in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99618
Bug ID: 99618
Summary: `.gnu.debuglto_.debug_macro' referenced in section
`.gnu.debuglto_.debug_macro' of X defined in discarded
section
Product: gcc
Version: 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #9 from Michal Zientkiewicz ---
(My previous comment may seem unclear, so let me clarify):
The _demo_ is not very useful, but the example in the example from the previous
comment is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #8 from Michal Zientkiewicz ---
Jakub: You read coorectly, I was checking for global construction/destruction
order of many variables. I agree that a global lock is a heavy-handed solution
- and likely the only one that would always g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Swapping __cxa_guard_release with __cxa_atexit would "fix" the case where the
user program would in all threads access all the local variables in the same
order. So all threads first access f<0>(), then f<1>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Or do you mean it is possible that for two unrelated variables
> variable 1 with its guard variable 2 with its guard
> __cxa_guard_acquire succeeds
> ct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The variables can be constructed even exactly at the same time, or at least the
ctors can be started concurrently and end concurrently. I don't think you can
rely on a particular ordering of the destructors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > I have a patch with cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99341
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ee24638ed0ad51e568c799bacf149ba9bd7628b
commit r11-7688-g6ee24638ed0ad51e568c799bacf149ba9bd7628b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99341
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:995a740cb01a0671a2082cb1ae13d0c356d4b568
commit r11-7689-g995a740cb01a0671a2082cb1ae13d0c356d4b568
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #47 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ee24638ed0ad51e568c799bacf149ba9bd7628b
commit r11-7688-g6ee24638ed0ad51e568c799bacf149ba9bd7628b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > > I'm going to handle it.
> >
> > actually, I was already on it .. but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
--- Comment #4 from Michal Zientkiewicz ---
The problem is that the order of destruction is incorrect if there's a race
condition.
Consider 2 threads initializing static variables S1 and S2:
Thread A Thread B
acquire
construct S1
re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > I'm going to handle it.
>
> actually, I was already on it .. but if you want to...
I have a patch with changelog don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> I'm going to handle it.
actually, I was already on it .. but if you want to...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99613
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99616
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99615
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fjahanian at apple dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'd prefer if the compiler just got it right. This seems like a warning that
should fire even in system headers. Or it should track that the value is a
function parameter and came from a non-system header a
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
