https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116462
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116462
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #12)
> (thanks), but on Solaris/sparc there's
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c scan-assembler DW_AT_ranges
>
> both with as and gas.
Hmm,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101598
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100515
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Okay, while the ICE is fixed, there is something odd in the test case:
foo._omp_fn.0:
.LVL0:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
.file 1 "pr100515.c"
.loc 1 10 5 view -0
ret
.cfi_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100515
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100515
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 50795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50795&action=edit
Proposed patch
This is what I'm currently testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Rainer,
I would be happy if you could give this patch a try.
Thanks
Bernd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 50778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50778&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Okay, after some debugging I see the problem.
Usually thunks are emitted from ymtab-thunks.cc:
cfun->is_thunk = 1;
insn_locations_init ();
set_curr_insn_location (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> so it is not possible to debug those functions
Aehm, i meant of course it is _now_ possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100106
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #15)
> I'm seeing a number of new testsuite failures on AIX after the
> collect2/testsuite change. Do you want a separate PR or use this as well?
>
> They are:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
could someone try this for me?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests
index 80d4b61..7cd755c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp
+++ b/gcc/te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Aah, now I see (lto-wrapper.c):
if (parallel)
{
fprintf (mstream, "%s:\n\t@%s ", output_name, new_argv[0]);
for (j = 1; new_argv[j] != NULL; ++j)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I tried to bootstrap with
GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.24
but still cannot reproduce the reported
failure ltrans0.ltrans_args / ltrans0.ltrans_args.0
I really wonder what makes the difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
when you leave just one of those tests, you can
get somewhat more verbose output by using something like that:
make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-v/-Wl,-v outputs.exp"
you should see wher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
It is interesting that some tests are reported failing
on the x86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform that I also use.
I really wonder what prevents these failures for me.
Could you say if there the outputs.exp test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Unfortunately I cannot reproduce.
I configured like this:
../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/ed/gnu/install --enable-languages=all
and use
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.35.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
don't know if it helps, but with -Wshadow=compatible-local
the regression begins probably earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
>
> > Shall I raise this to P1 so it prevents gcc-10 release?
>
> Definitely not. Setting priority is the release managers job, and btw.
> bug priority is mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> No, we can't block GCC 10 release indefinitely, we are already behind the
> usual schedule. We need to resolve the C++ ABI issues and get the release
> out.
So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> My benchmarking setup is currently gone so unfortunately no, not easily.
> I'll be re-measuring everything on a different computer with a slightly
> different C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Martin, can you try to change the limits,
maybe that is just a limit for inline expansions
that is not right?
|1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93286
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
with the following command it started already earlier:
gcc -Wshadow-compatible-local -fmax-errors=1 -std=c++17 -c effect.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sat Nov 23 06:33:59 2019
New Revision: 278639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92365
2019-11-22 Bernd Edlinger
PR c++/92365
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I tried this, and it contradicts what above comment says:
$ cat test1.cc
void foo()
{
char *x = int();
}
gcc -Wall -S -std=c++17 test1.cc
test1.cc: In function ‘void foo()’:
test1.cc:3:9: warning: unus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Some insight, why the crash only happens with -std=c++98:
-Wshadow=compatible-local tries to find out if there is an
implicit conversion between the "int16_t f" and "a f".
The only candidate is a::a(char *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92386
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(gdb) info locals
v = 32767
v = 0
i = 0
(gdb) s
10 v++;
(gdb) info locals
v = 32767
v = 1
i = 0
(gdb) s
11 printf("i = %d outer v 1 is %d\n",i, v);
(gdb) info locals
v = 32767
v = 2
i = 0
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
This was a hidden bug:
g++ -std=c++98 -Wshadow=compatible-local test.cc
did ICE all the time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92325
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92024
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Oct 30 20:29:21 2019
New Revision: 277643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277643&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-30 Bernd Edlinger
* doc/invoke.texi (-Wshadow, -Ws
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Oct 2 13:22:37 2019
New Revision: 276458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-02 Bernd Edlinger
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91964
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jörg Richter from comment #5)
> There needs to be at least a way to suppress the warning with a cast
> or some other construct (not pragma).
That is simple: if ( C != A ) ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Sep 13 17:22:04 2019
New Revision: 275701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275701&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-13 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/91708
* c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Sep 13 11:33:18 2019
New Revision: 275698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-13 Bernd Edlinger
PR fortran/91716
* trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91716
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46877&action=edit
untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91684
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sat Sep 7 05:11:16 2019
New Revision: 275484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275484&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
add PR target/91684 to ChangeLog
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91605
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91605
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91615
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Thu Sep 5 13:40:17 2019
New Revision: 275409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-05 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/91615
* ex
||2019-09-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |edlinger at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46820
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46820&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91615
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hi Christophe,
many thanks for your invaluable help.
I think except this one all regressions are fixed or
at least understood.
Unfortunately I have a bit of trouble to reproduce this
could you please give
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91613
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Sep 3 14:37:41 2019
New Revision: 275342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-03 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/91603
PR m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91603
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Sep 3 14:37:41 2019
New Revision: 275342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-03 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/91603
PR m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91612
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Sep 3 14:37:41 2019
New Revision: 275342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-03 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/91603
PR m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91605
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Sep 2 14:26:26 2019
New Revision: 275320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-09-02 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/91605
* ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91615
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
yes that looks very likely.
I was not able to reproduce this particular failure,
but you can try out the patch I attached to pr91612
and see if it fixes you problem.
I am currently short of test capability a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
In some configs the function saves r4/r5 with strd/ldrd,
I think the dg-final statments should ignore register spills,
they are easy to detect since they always use the sp register.
This changed a bit, since
||2019-08-31
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |edlinger at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46792&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91605
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hmm, for whatever reason the decl-align of the
"to" is 256 bit normally but when -fpack-struct
is used only 8 bit aligned, but it is a reg.
The reason for the ICE is that the movmisalign
optab is rightfully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Aug 28 10:20:44 2019
New Revision: 274987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274987&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-28 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/89544
* gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Aug 20 05:32:49 2019
New Revision: 274691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-20 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/89544
* fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Aug 16 16:37:04 2019
New Revision: 274578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274578&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-16 Bernd Edlinger
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Aug 16 16:31:13 2019
New Revision: 274577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-16 Bernd Edlinger
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Aug 16 15:34:47 2019
New Revision: 274573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274573&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-16 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/91109
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:45:06 2019
New Revision: 274163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274163&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-07 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/91109
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #36 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Feb 27 20:14:55 2019
New Revision: 269264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-27 Bernd Edlinger
PR rtl-optimization/89490
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #30 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Either the
>/* Don't use anchors for mergeable sections. The linker might move
> the objects around. */
> comment should be dropped, or the two com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88928
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88928
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jan 21 17:12:09 2019
New Revision: 268118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268118&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-21 Bernd Edlinger
PR c/88928
* c-warn.c (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80228
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic, rejects-valid |wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Ed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 69697, which changed state.
Bug 69697 Summary: incorrect runtime initialization of static flexible array
members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69697
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69697
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 69696, which changed state.
Bug 69696 Summary: incorrect initialization of block-scope flexible array
members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69696
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69696
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69338
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 69338, which changed state.
Bug 69338 Summary: incorrect ctor initialization of a flexible array member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69338
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88261
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jan 7 17:08:51 2019
New Revision: 267653
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88261
PR c++/69338
PR c++/69696
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69697
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jan 7 17:08:51 2019
New Revision: 267653
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88261
PR c++/69338
PR c++/69696
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69696
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jan 7 17:08:51 2019
New Revision: 267653
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88261
PR c++/69338
PR c++/69696
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69338
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jan 7 17:08:51 2019
New Revision: 267653
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88261
PR c++/69338
PR c++/69696
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88261
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hmm, there are a few loose ends, where there is simply no decl.
For instance in this example:
/* PR c/5597 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "" } */
/* Verify that GCC forbids non-static initiali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88261
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 45238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45238&action=edit
untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88261
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> Right, but we're not supposed to ICE, even on invalid code.
Yes, ideed.
I think what would be needed is adding this C-error to the C++FE:
array-6.c: In funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88261
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
For G++ versions, where this was accepted with -fpermissive, the code was
wrong:
struct str { int len; char s[]; };
int foo()
{
struct str b = { 2, "b" };
return sizeof(b);
}
=>
movl$4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.1.0
--- Comment #67 from Bernd Edling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87476
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
- if (char_type != char_type_node
- && char_type != signed_char_type_node
- && char_type != unsigned_char_type_node)
+ if (char_type != char_type_node)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87940
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87940
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Nov 9 20:38:07 2018
New Revision: 265992
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265992&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-09 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/87940
||2018-11-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |edlinger at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
proposed patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg00325.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 86572, which changed state.
Bug 86572 Summary: unsafe strlen folding of const arguments with non-const
offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86572
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86572
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86572
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sun Nov 4 19:51:09 2018
New Revision: 265778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2018-11-04 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/86572
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sun Nov 4 19:46:08 2018
New Revision: 265777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2018-11-04 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/87672
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87672
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86121
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Aug 21 08:56:11 2018
New Revision: 263693
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263693&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-21 Bernd Edlinger
PR middle-end/86121
* tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sun Jul 29 16:44:24 2018
New Revision: 263055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263055&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2018-07-29 Bernd Edlinger
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Jul 23 13:23:51 2018
New Revision: 262933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262933&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2018-07-23 Bernd Edlinger
PR c/86617
* genmat
1 - 100 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
