[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Feb 24 20:41:54 2017 New Revision: 245719 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245719&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/79588 c-family/ * c-common.c (check_function_restri

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 40781 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40781&action=edit gcc7-pr79588.patch Likely yes. In the mean time I've moved it at least to a better place in the C/C++ FE.

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-20 Thread prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 --- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Indeed, consider e.g. > // PR c++/79588 > // { dg-do compile } > // { dg-options "-Wrestrict" } > > void foo (char *__restrict, char *__restri

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Indeed, consider e.g. // PR c++/79588 // { dg-do compile } // { dg-options "-Wrestrict" } void foo (char *__restrict, char *__restrict = __null); template void bar (char **p) { foo (p[0], p[0]); // {

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think the big question is if it isn't simply too early to warn at the place you've added it, shouldn't it be done later on when the call arguments are already complete? E.g. do you warn properly for calls

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-18 Thread prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 --- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 40771 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40771&action=edit untested patch Hi Jakub, IIUC, the patch punts if param_pos < args->length(), ie, the defaul

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/79588] [7 Regression] ICE in warn_for_restrict with -Wrestrict

2017-02-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|