Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'd like to have a specific minimum supported CPU for some particular software,
but also allow the software to run on newer CPUs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #13 from Alex Henrie ---
I should clarify that I was testing with GCC 12.2. It turns out that GCC 12.3
does not crash, and I have now confirmed that the patch from comment #5 applied
to GCC 12.3 fixes https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #12 from Alex Henrie ---
Created attachment 56687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56687&action=edit
Minimal example to reproduce the crash
Here's a minimal example that crashes on MinGW 12 with -m32 -mavx512f
-m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #11 from Alex Henrie ---
Well, this is interesting: Unpatched MinGW 12 crashes in the same way if I set
both -march=native and -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2. So the problem is not the
patch itself, it's just that the patch revealed so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
Alex Henrie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111056
--- Comment #3 from Alex Henrie ---
By the way, thanks for pointing out that using constexpr suppresses the warning
on GCC. Although Clang does not support constexpr in C yet, it is interesting
that Clang is smart enough to not warn about a plai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111056
Alex Henrie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
#include
int main()
{
signed int a = 1;
enum : signed int { b = 1 };
unsigned int c = -1;
if (a < c) // condition is true, -Wsign-compare warns ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110426
--- Comment #4 from Alex Henrie ---
I tried out your changes and the warnings look great now. Thank you!
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I expected to get a warning when compiling this program with -fanalyzer:
#include
extern void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66618
--- Comment #9 from Alex Henrie ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Alex Henrie from comment #6)
> > This wasn't fixed properly, or it was broken again before the release of GCC
> > 8.1: In GCC 8.1 and later no warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66618
Alex Henrie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108476
--- Comment #3 from Alex Henrie ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note the warning should really be split into two different options. One for
> the return type of the declaration and one for the missing return in
> non-void case.
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
According to the documentation, -Wreturn-type does the following:
"Warn whenever a function is defined with a return type that defaults to
int. Also warn abou
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
strlen example, source code:
#include
int main()
{
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #15 from Alex Henrie ---
Nicholas Guriev also sent a patch for this issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573774.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #13 from Alex Henrie ---
I filled out all the forms and was approved to contribute code to GCC, but the
patches have still not been reviewed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00971.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86407
--- Comment #6 from Alex Henrie ---
Created attachment 46363
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46363&action=edit
[PATCH] Add option to ignore fndecl attributes on function pointers
This patch separates warnings about applying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86407
--- Comment #5 from Alex Henrie ---
The fundamental problem here is that some people want to combine calling
convention attributes and certain other attributes in a macro and then use that
macro everywhere, whereas other people want to place each
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #11 from Alex Henrie ---
Created attachment 45889
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45889&action=edit
Proposed patches
I fixed up the patch from comment 4 and added a second patch with tests. Now
I'm just waiting t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #8 from Alex Henrie ---
Why weren't Manuel's patches accepted?
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I am working on a Qt4 program that we need to compile with both GCC 4.8.5 and
GCC 8.2.0. The build process sets the -Werror option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72830
--- Comment #2 from Alex Henrie ---
All versions of GCC 5 and GCC 6 have the same problem.
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexhenrie24 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 39070
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39070&action=edit
Test program that demonstrates the problem
According t
24 matches
Mail list logo
