https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117438
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6350e956d1a74963a62bedabef3d4a1a3f2d4852
commit r15-5489-g6350e956d1a74963a62bedabef3d4a1a3f2d4852
Author: MayShao-oc
Date: Thu No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490
--- Comment #11 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk and for C23 only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117165
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Similar, with __builtin_ia32_fnstenv():
$ cat testcase.c
void foo() { __builtin_ia32_fnstenv(0); }
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -msoft-float testcase.c
testcase.c: In function 'foo':
testcase.c:1:41: error: unr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117686
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117686
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4484945c538b26da6881f83f664235988e471d40
commit r15-5486-g4484945c538b26da6881f83f664235988e471d40
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117641
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 59622 [details]
> gcc15-pr117641.patch
>
> Untested fix (which will just error out in this case).
> The __sync_fetch* etc. compatibility built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117694
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>15.0.0 20240612
Since you are using a GCC snapshot that was over 5 months old you should update
to a newer one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bic60176 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
Short description: the compiler issues spurious warning/errors
when an empty array is passed to a procedure, even though
that procedure may not access any element of the array.
Output of uname -a:
Linux baikal 6.8.0-45-generic #45-Ubuntu SMP
PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Aug 30 12:02:04 UTC 2024
x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117694
Bug ID: 117694
Summary: ICE: tree_class_check_failed(tree_node const*,
tree_code_class, char const*, int, char const*)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117669
Feng Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wangfeng at eswincomputing dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #79 from LIU Hao ---
Created attachment 59639
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59639&action=edit
quote symbols for intel syntax
This patch is necessary for TLS in Intel syntax to work with GNU AS. Details
follow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #78 from LIU Hao ---
I changed it to `ix86_GOT_alias_set()` and checked output assembly. The patch
should be fine for these setups:
* x86_64-w64-mingw-32 (-O0, -O1, -O2, -Os)
* i686-w64-mingw-32 (-O0, -O1, -O2, -Os)
Simple test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117679
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
struct A {
char u, v, w;
};
struct X { char x; };
struct B : X {
A y;
};
constexpr A f() {
union U {
A a{ 1, 2, 3 };
B b;
} u;
u.b.y = u.a; // when does the life ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #77 from LIU Hao ---
../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc: In function 'rtx_def*
legitimize_tls_address(rtx, tls_model, bool)':
../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:12196:27: error: 'GOT_ALIAS_SET' was not
declared in this scope; did you me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117690
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59638
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59638&action=edit
Runtime test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
--- Comment #7 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Reproduces for me:
$ g++ -g2 -O0 -o codecvt_length_bug codecvt_length_bug.cpp
$ ./codecvt_length_bug
*** buffer overflow detected ***: terminated
Aborted (core dumped)
$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117688
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117355
--- Comment #12 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Even smaller reproducer that actually shows what's going on:
```
typedef unsigned long size_t;
#define STR "bbb"
void
gen_blr (void)
{
char line[256];
const char *p = STR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117477
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
--- Comment #76 from LIU Hao ---
I can include this patch for some testing on GCC 14 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117649
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:065433b4ce8d9676ba3be4871c520b8257f21c14
commit r15-5482-g065433b4ce8d9676ba3be4871c520b8257f21c14
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Tue Nov 19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117649
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117692
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Applying pattern match.pd:5600, gimple-match-3.cc:3136
gimple_simplified to _7 = x_2(D) * 25;
_5 = _7 + 800;
Folded into: _5 = _7 + 800;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115515
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5afc98fec97d84baa0c580809fb3e220444fa20d
commit r15-5481-g5afc98fec97d84baa0c580809fb3e220444fa20d
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
--- Comment #8 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
I think, sanitizers won't detect it unless you build libstdc++ with them
enabled. I would expect valgrind to detect it though.
I think, Ubuntu builds libstdc++ with _FORTIFY_SOURCE enabled, which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115515
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117139
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117684
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe some earlier commit on GCC 9 was needed for that one to fix the slowness,
and that earlier commit was not backported to GCC 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can't reproduce a crash, or any runtime error from valgrind, ubsan, asan, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> With the patch for PR 117665, there is no error.
Just an FYI, it does reduce down to the same testcase as we found in PR 117665
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117684
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It was fixed by r267253
re PR c++/87934 (struct with NSDMI of enum makes initialization a
non-constant expression)
PR c++/87934
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117686
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is the fix:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
@@ -2287,7 +2287,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
else if constexpr (sizeof...(_Args)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Nope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117683
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Andrew said RTTI, not exceptions. You can still use exceptions with -fno-rtti.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105857
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can click on the "Keywords" link to see the meanings.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> This won't be fixed for 12.x
N.B. This comment was added when clearing the "target milestone" field, which
claimed it was going to target 12.2. I wasn't just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > Looks like some of the TM builtins can too.
>
> tmedge makes the edges there, I think the edges are correct, jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117693
Bug ID: 117693
Summary: need verification for abnormal edges and statements
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|The VRP pass is introducing |[15 Regression] The VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117691
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Looks like some of the TM builtins can too.
tmedge makes the edges there, I think the edges are correct, just we might get
rid of them on accident later on. May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117692
Bug ID: 117692
Summary: The VRP pass is introducing new signed integer
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117691
Bug ID: 117691
Summary: cc1: internal compiler error: in fail, at
selftest.cc:47
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 59636 [details]
> > new patch
> >
> > Whoops some small typos.
>
> Looks like "#pragma omp f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Created attachment 59636 [details]
> new patch
>
> Whoops some small typos.
Looks like "#pragma omp for", "#pragma omp simd", "#pragma acc loop" can end
with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78216
Adam Ryan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc.gnu.org@ajryansolutions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
--- Comment #12 from R. Diez ---
I do not agree with the detailed exception specifications. Java tried and such
code is hard to maintain. I think all code should generally be able to cope
with any exceptions: either handle them, pass them up the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
--- Comment #11 from David Crocker ---
I've been bitten by this several times. In the absence of support for this type
of checking in GCC I added exception checking to our own homebrew static
analysis tool. It's already detected three situations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117690
Bug ID: 117690
Summary: RISC-V: Constant is miscompiled by zba extension
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98992
--- Comment #3 from R. Diez ---
This is still broken in GCC 14.2.
The test code I am using is:
#include
struct MyClass
{
static void FreeMemory ( const void * pMem ) throw();
__attribute__ (( malloc, malloc( MyClass::FreeMemory, 1 ) ))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117689
Bug ID: 117689
Summary: enum with underying type "extension" to GNU 17 is not
documented
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Created attachment 59636 [details]
> new patch
>
> Whoops some small typos.
Just to confirm this is working, I ran this with the testcase from PR 117665
with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059
--- Comment #12 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I filed PR117687 for the other cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117687
--- Comment #1 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059#c10 the
warning should be enhanced to cover these cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61372
--- Comment #10 from R. Diez ---
I have been bitten by this lack of warning before, but GCC 10.5 should be able
to issue such a warning by default and has the following option in order to
disable the warning:
-Wno-terminate (C++ and Objective-C+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117687
Bug ID: 117687
Summary: Wzero-as-nullpointer-constant should warn for zeros of
type bool, enum, and _BitInt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117688
Bug ID: 117688
Summary: RISC-V: Wrong code for .SAT_SUB
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115515
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90801
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117684
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
By the way the code needs to be updated to add an include for cstdint to
compile with the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115515
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #37 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5a87c8d8c6a8cfcd23595e67d3b86939e01c75c
commit r15-5477-gf5a87c8d8c6a8cfcd23595e67d3b86939e01c75c
Author: Mikael Morin
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
R. Diez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdiez-2006 at rd10 dot de
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117684
--- Comment #2 from Lemetter Sebastien
---
With this compiler version:
❯ /usr/bin/g++-9 --version
g++-9 (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.2) 9.4.0
the bug does not occur. The problem is that our target is to compile for QNX on
ARM architecture, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114869
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Summary|[13/14/15 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114869
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:933b146f0aac96b05cd5a7518929843f72c8b64a
commit r15-5476-g933b146f0aac96b05cd5a7518929843f72c8b64a
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117684
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc 8 is almost 7 years old now and is no longer supported. Can you test
something newer?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54378
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b222ee10045db06655d2a9f0d87e25c5083d98c8
commit r15-5475-gb222ee10045db06655d2a9f0d87e25c5083d98c8
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117686
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117686
Bug ID: 117686
Summary: [15 Regression] error in unordered_set::emplace
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117684
Bug ID: 117684
Summary: High compiling time for array initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116590
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117683
--- Comment #2 from R. Diez ---
> You know most places which are size constraints ban the use of RTTI.
Popular belief is often wrong. See here for details:
https://github.com/rdiez/DebugDue?tab=readme-ov-file#about-c-exceptions
I am actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54378
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117683
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117683
Bug ID: 117683
Summary: provide a way to remove all C++ class names from the
binary
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83135
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117509
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
The warning is correct! I don't want to suppress the warning from the function
that gives it to me, I want to get a warning out of the function that doesn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117509
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59635|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117668
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59635
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59635&action=edit
the verifier
I am trying this first. I suspect there will be failures due to this too ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117676
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-19
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117641
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8663fc1c2826c86455e51e58203cb95b2b1407e3
commit r15-5473-g8663fc1c2826c86455e51e58203cb95b2b1407e3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117456
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02fff24e2c6d4affc47dac1433b2fb182dadd4db
commit r15-5472-g02fff24e2c6d4affc47dac1433b2fb182dadd4db
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115164
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aefb47144465c620141daf46e0ce576a5b0a389e
commit r14-10944-gaefb47144465c620141daf46e0ce576a5b0a389e
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117612
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 59634
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59634&action=edit
gcc15-pr117612-wip.patch
My current WIP patch. Still need to add handling of debug statements and
testcase co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116915
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks for cleaning up those issues. 16bit testing just doesn't get as much
attention as the more mainstream targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117677
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> Does -Wfloat-equal warn about this? Maybe it'd be worth adding to the
> warnings enabled when building GCC?
I don't think we should use that warning when buildi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117671
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115057
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:399065ea44219d08ca28238cba0fc1fef422628b
commit r14-10943-g399065ea44219d08ca28238cba0fc1fef422628b
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
