: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
Target Milestone: ---
I found two issues with handling of structures, which might be related.
Given structures like this:
struct X { char v; };
struct X2 { X x; char v; };
struct X3 { X2 x2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
Target Milestone: ---
The following code compiles with GCC 7.3.0 and earlier, but errors with GCC
8.1.0
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
Target Milestone: ---
struct Base {
template
void f(T &&) const {}
};
struct Derived: Base {
template
void f(T &&) con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70047
--- Comment #2 from Jaak Ristioja ---
Perhaps the simplest example for x86_64 would be something like:
void f(long a1, long a2, long a3, long a4, long a5, long a6, long a7);
According to the ABI all seven arguments are classified as INTEGER-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70100
--- Comment #3 from Jaak Ristioja ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> template struct K {
> using CmdSP = std::D;
> template void operator()(Args... args) {
> using MakeFunc = CmdSP(...);
> MakeFunc makeFuncs;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71568
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja ---
After trying to minimize the code, this still seems to trigger the same error:
#include
template using whatever = void;
template struct has_f;
template
struct has_f> {};
struct X {
void f() const {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70808
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #1
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
Target Milestone: ---
Code:
int f() { int f[0][f()] = {}; }
Both gcc and g++ versions 5.3.0 (in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1313) 4.9.3 (in
make_decl_rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70414
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70576
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
Target Milestone: ---
int foo() { return 2; }
int main() {
int& foo();
foo() = 42; // Segfault
}
First detected here:
h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55914
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #9
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
Target Milestone: ---
According to the x86_64 ABI [1], function arguments are passed using registers
and stack memory. It might be useful for x86_64 and other architectures if GCC
would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
--- Comment #5 from Jaak Ristioja ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed for gcc5.
Looking at the diff of revision 221708, I fail to see how the
if (__rtime <= __rtime.zero())
return;
check in sleep_for() prevents the
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
#include
struct E { E(int) {} };
int main() { std::throw_with_nested(E(42)); return 0; }
Compiling with "g++ -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra". Tried with
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
$ cat test.cpp
struct Base { virtual ~Base() noexcept; };
struct A { ~A(); }; // Should mean noexcept
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57887
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #8
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
#include
#include
#include
int main() {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::duration(std::numeric_limits::max()));
return 0;
}
This do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54316
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #4
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jaak at ristioja dot ee
I found this bug after a NULL pointer dereference:
// test.cpp
int main() {
return (new char[8010463299950541741]) != 0;
}
$ g++-4.8.1 -fsanitize=address test.cpp -o test && ./tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55530
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja 2012-11-29 13:37:29
UTC ---
Sorry, the minimal testcase should have been:
struct __attribute__ ((visibility("internal"))) A {};
struct B { A * a; }; /* warning: 'B' declared with greater visibility than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55530
Bug #: 55530
Summary: Visibility warning not always shown
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25 16:37:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Well, they are equivalent where they are both defined, or if you apply C99
> rules to infinite-precision integers. The problem here is that INT_MIN %
> -1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #7 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25 16:08:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> /* X % -Y is the same as X % Y. */
> (fold-const.c:fold_binary_loc) would probably be what's wrong here.
On the other hand
https://www.securecoding.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-10-25 14:30:41
UTC ---
Compiled with clang 2.9, the code runs correctly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Bug #: 50865
Summary: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49658
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-07-06 10:26:24
UTC ---
Heh sry. I also made a typo. The text SHOULD contain "are" instead of "are is".
PS: The bugzilla might need a "Documentation" component for gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49658
Summary: Typo in gcc/doc/extend.texi
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43686
--- Comment #3 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-06-10 09:19:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Duplicate of PR42621?
And probably a duplicate of bug 39284 also.
(In reply to comment #2)
> yes. It's definitely the same issue.
>
> The only additional
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42621
--- Comment #13 from Jaak Ristioja 2011-06-10
08:52:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> PPS: As noted by other, this bug is likely a duplicate to bug 39284 and bug
> 43868.
As noted by others, this bug is likely a duplicate to bug 39284 and b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42621
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #12
34 matches
Mail list logo
