[Bug c/44677] Warn for variables incremented but not used (+=, ++)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677 --- Comment #20 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #19) > However, the i++ is not completely useless, as this is a way to tell the > compiler that the number of iterations is bounded by INT_MAX I wouldn't say that.

[Bug c/118875] Accept standard names with uppercase C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118875 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0) > I think you're assuming there's some specific code to deal the uppercase > form, but it just looks for a close

[Bug driver/118875] New: Accept standard names with uppercase C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118875 Bug ID: 118875 Summary: Accept standard names with uppercase C Product: gcc Version: 14.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: driver

[Bug rtl-optimization/116704] Missed optimization: Setting return value to 0 on both branches of a condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > NOTE on this is just a small size optimization and on modern processors the > setting of register to 0 is free. You mean, not taking cycles on a functional uni

[Bug tree-optimization/116704] New: Missed optimization: Setting return value to 0 on both branches of a condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116704 Bug ID: 116704 Summary: Missed optimization: Setting return value to 0 on both branches of a condition Product: gcc Version: 14.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug c++/116703] Use of enum from a template instantiation fails for no apparent reason

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116703 --- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) I see... well: 1. Perhaps the error message could be rephrased or expanded? 2. Do you believe that is indeed a valid expectation?

[Bug c++/116703] New: Use of enum from a template instantiation fails for no apparent reason

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116703 Bug ID: 116703 Summary: Use of enum from a template instantiation fails for no apparent reason Product: gcc Version: 14.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c++/116703] Use of enum from a template instantiation fails for no apparent reason

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116703 --- Comment #1 from Eyal Rozenberg --- May be related to: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1485

[Bug c++/97477] g++ doesn't accept __restrict keyword inside array function parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97477 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/88371] Gratuitous (?) warning regarding an implicit conversion in pointer arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88371 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Looks to be fixed in GCC 10+. Indeed... mark this as RESOLVED FIXED perhaps?

[Bug ipa/89567] [missed-optimization] Should not be initializing unused struct parameter members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89567 --- Comment #7 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > I am think this can be closed as fixed ... Well, my example no longer generates two loads. However > IPA-SRA does handle this if the function is static. > >

[Bug web/113190] Alert not to report bugs against EOL releases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113190 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug other/113188] New: graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c: ‘isl_val_free’ was not declared in this scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113188 Bug ID: 113188 Summary: graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c: ‘isl_val_free’ was not declared in this scope Product: gcc Version: 6.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug bootstrap/87858] Building old multilib bootstrap GCC: stage1 32-bit libstdc++ fails to build after building 64-bit libstdc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858 --- Comment #15 from Eyal Rozenberg --- Note that: * in apt-based distributions such as Debian, the relevant package would be lib32stdc++-dev , or a similar name with the GCC version, e.g. lib32stdc++-11-dev . * Even when this particular issue

[Bug bootstrap/113181] When compiling sanitizer_printf.cc, getting error: multiple definition of ‘enum fsconfig_command’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113181 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) Perhaps I should file a separate bug about collecting 'errata' for finalized release lines, for when users of newer systems want to build them. That could be pla

[Bug bootstrap/113181] New: When compiling sanitizer_printf.cc, getting error: multiple definition of ‘enum fsconfig_command’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113181 Bug ID: 113181 Summary: When compiling sanitizer_printf.cc, getting error: multiple definition of ‘enum fsconfig_command’ Product: gcc Version: 8.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/113177] New: GCC 8.5.0 build with libstdcxx gets library versions mixed up

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113177 Bug ID: 113177 Summary: GCC 8.5.0 build with libstdcxx gets library versions mixed up Product: gcc Version: 8.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/112612] Holding on the loop variable rather than a derived value which can replace it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112612 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > IV-OPTs selects these IVs and is very much target specific due to cost model. In this example, it seems that the missed optimization should be useful under mos

[Bug c/112612] New: [Missed Optimization] Holding on the loop variable rather than a derived value which can replace it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112612 Bug ID: 112612 Summary: [Missed Optimization] Holding on the loop variable rather than a derived value which can replace it Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/95148] -Wtype-limits always-false warning triggered despite comparison being avoided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95148 --- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > > I should not be getting this warning, because when x is unsigned, the > > comparison is never performed, due to the short-circuit semantics of `and`. > > T

[Bug c++/105845] Provide a name mangling facility usable within C++ code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jiang An from comment #1) > I don't think this is a bug of libstdc++. Well, it's not a bug, it's a feature request. But - I certainly won't bikeshed about the choice of component. > Perhaps y

[Bug libstdc++/105845] New: Provide a name mangling facility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845 Bug ID: 105845 Summary: Provide a name mangling facility Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug preprocessor/105444] New: Support for disabling all warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105444 Bug ID: 105444 Summary: Support for disabling all warnings Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocess

[Bug sanitizer/105029] sanitizer_internal_defs.h:254:72: error: size of array ‘assertion_failed__1135’ is negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105029 --- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > You could backport the fix if you want. I'd like to trouble you for a little more guidance, so that I can apply the fix to 6.5.0. Now, I understand the fix do

[Bug sanitizer/105029] sanitizer_internal_defs.h:254:72: error: size of array ‘assertion_failed__1135’ is negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105029 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Host||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Target

[Bug sanitizer/105029] New: sanitizer_internal_defs.h:254:72: error: size of array ‘assertion_failed__1135’ is negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105029 Bug ID: 105029 Summary: sanitizer_internal_defs.h:254:72: error: size of array ‘assertion_failed__1135’ is negative Product: gcc Version: 6.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/96645] [9/10/11/12 Regression] [CWG2335] std::variant default constructor and unparsed DMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645 --- Comment #18 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14) > > Alternatively, when not following the standard strictly, why should it not > > be option (4.): Ignore the official restriction on determining (nothrow) > > c

[Bug other/42540] c++ error message [vtable undefined] is unhelpful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540 --- Comment #21 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20) > No, but "the first non-pure, non-inline virtual function in the class" is > easy for the user to find. Well, yes, granted, that would be a huge improvement.

[Bug other/42540] c++ error message [vtable undefined] is unhelpful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540 --- Comment #19 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17) Ok, have read the wiki page. > The linker could easily say that, with no changes from GCC. Is the signature, or name, of the "key function" present in compil

[Bug other/42540] c++ error message [vtable undefined] is unhelpful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540 --- Comment #16 from Eyal Rozenberg --- Some comments following my recent dupe... (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I don't know if there is anything there could be done here since the linker > is what is producing the error. The co

[Bug c++/104918] Pass information to let the linker tell the user which virtual members are missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104918 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > I don't think there's anything for GCC to do here. Why not store information in the compiled object saying which virtual items are undefined? The vtable was

[Bug c++/104918] New: Pass information to let the linker tell the user which virtual members are missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104918 Bug ID: 104918 Summary: Pass information to let the linker tell the user which virtual members are missing Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug other/104431] Provide better error message when GCC "multilib" is missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104431 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > How did configure GCC? I used: ./configure --disable-gnat --disable-fortran (although I'm not sure --disable-fortran does anything).

[Bug other/104431] New: Provide better error message when GCC "multilib" is missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104431 Bug ID: 104431 Summary: Provide better error message when GCC "multilib" is missing Product: gcc Version: 8.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/103531] Propose compiler warning when ceil/ceilf used on integral value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103531 --- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3) > -Wtraditional-conversion catches this: Well... you're technically right, but: 1. That is a much wider warning. If someone were to turn this on they would get

[Bug c/103531] Propose compiler warning when ceil/ceilf used on integral value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103531 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Prpose compiler warning |Propose compiler warning

[Bug c/103531] New: Prpose compiler warning when ceil functions used on integral value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103531 Bug ID: 103531 Summary: Prpose compiler warning when ceil functions used on integral value Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/102996] No warning on dereferencing of uninitialized pointer in an array, in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102996 --- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > The foo form is handled by the early uninit pass Since _none_ of `as` is initialized, one could argue that an early uninit pass could catch that as well.

[Bug c/102996] New: No warning on use dereferencing of uninitialized point in an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102996 Bug ID: 102996 Summary: No warning on use dereferencing of uninitialized point in an array Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/102936] New: Excessive warnings about passing NULL for an "%s" specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102936 Bug ID: 102936 Summary: Excessive warnings about passing NULL for an "%s" specifier Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/78963] [missed optimization] using 3-byte instead of 4-byte variables causes unnecessary work on the stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78963 --- Comment #1 from Eyal Rozenberg --- ... and perhaps I should add that, under certain circumstances, perhaps it should be possible to just mov four bytes from memory and ignore one of the bytes. On platforms where access must be aligned that wo

[Bug c++/96645] [9/10/11/12 Regression] std::variant default constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com --- Comment #12

[Bug c++/102199] is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199 --- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > See PR 96645 and PR 101227 Ok. But does that explain why defining an explicit constructor cause g++ to accept the class as default-constructible?

[Bug c++/102199] is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199 --- Comment #5 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > See PR 96645 and PR 101227 Ok, I

[Bug c++/102199] is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199 --- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg --- Andrew: What you're saying would be plausible if g++ would find the structure to be incomplete. It does not. The completeness check passes; and it is why adding the explicit default ctor makes the assertin

[Bug libstdc++/102199] New: is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199 Bug ID: 102199 Summary: is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/100184] New: Detect variables which are only "used" in updating themselves

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100184 Bug ID: 100184 Summary: Detect variables which are only "used" in updating themselves Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/63707] Brace initialization of array sometimes fails if no copy constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707 --- Comment #22 from Eyal Rozenberg --- Thank you, Jason and others, for your attentiveness to interest in the bug and prioritizing its fix. (Now if you could just fix all the other bugs I'm interested in... :-P)