https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
Krister Walfridsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Krister
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, this is an infinite loop with no forward progress so that might be the
difference between c and c++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424
Bug ID: 113424
Summary: lim fails to notice possible aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61402
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, we still have a missing warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
On 8/25/17, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 16/08/17 18:38, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>> I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that
>>> the server restore is now complete?
>>
>> No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrup
On 16/08/17 18:38, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that
>> the server restore is now complete?
>
> No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrupted or
> missing files by comparison wi
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
> >> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote:
> I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that
> the server restore is now complete?
No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrupted or
missing files by comparison with the last backup.
My expectation is that all
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the res
On 8/15/17, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>>> message looks
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 10:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
> > > was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.o
On 08/15/2017 10:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01303.html
(Strangely, 81841 is there, as is 8
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
> was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01303.html
>
> (Strangely, 81841 is there, as is 81839.)
That's another 81839 replac
On 08/15/2017 07:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
message looks like
On 15/08/17 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the rest of gcc.gnu.org h
On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
Even if it were possible, the
-dae...@sourceware.org
Date: 14 Aug 2017 22:03:54 -
Subject: failure notice
To: eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sor
c Gallager
-- Forwarded message --
From: mailer-dae...@sourceware.org
Date: 14 Aug 2017 22:03:54 -
Subject: failure notice
To: eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah indeed, sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
s might be a global variable, that foo modifies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80625
Bug ID: 80625
Summary: gcc fails to notice strdup does not modify it's
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68573
Bug ID: 68573
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=
discarded without notice
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jun 29 13:12:44 2015
New Revision: 225116
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225116&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/66322
* c-common.c (check_case_bounds): Add bool *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch posted some time ago:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00790.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Well, using switch on bool is always weird, one really should use if for
> that.
> If you want fallthrough, then just use if (cond) { first } second, if wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Szabolcs Nagy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nszabolcs at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess we also shouldn't warn on
(1) switch (bool)
{
case true: ...
default: ...
}
(2) switch (bool)
{
case true: ...
}
(3) switch (bool)
{
default:
}
Similarly wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Bug ID: 66322
Summary: Linus Torvalds: -Wswitch-bool produces dubious
warnings, fails to notice really bad things
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Summary|[5 Regression][C++1y] |-Wsequence-point doesn't
|Init-capture with side |notice unsequenced lambda
|effect not working for some |init and function argument
|types |
--- Comment #5 from Jason Me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-27
00:57:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> The text is now a bit more reddish. Fixed!
Thanks that is much better and thanks again for adding this text.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-10-27 00:55:14
UTC ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-26
16:52:40 UTC ---
That looks great to me (I was just being lazy reusing the existing FIELDSET
style)
Thanks for doing this!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-26
16:48:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Click the URL link above to see how it looks like. The change has already been
> applied to GCC Bugzilla.
Is there any way to make the text red r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-26
15:25:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> This is why we need it:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2012-10/msg02459.html
I agree we need it but I don't think the above one is a good example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-26
15:20:54 UTC ---
This is why we need it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2012-10/msg02459.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-23
10:28:43 UTC ---
Well the only global maintainer who commented was in favour of it, so let's try
the change.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
13:48:34 UTC ---
I'm certainly not able to approve the change, it'll need some kind of
agreement from the lead maintainers, which is why I raised it on the mailing
list. I don't know if anyo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-10-18
13:37:50 UTC ---
If everybody is happy with this mockup, I can push it live later today. Does it
need any formal approval?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
13:26:49 UTC ---
Here's a rubbishy mock up misusing and an existing CSS class, but it
makes it much easier to notice
http://www.kayari.plus.com/gcc/enter_bug.cgi-1.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-18
13:00:34 UTC ---
I was assuming it would be visible to everyone because it's harmless and can be
ignored (I'm sure many users will still ignore it!) but if other privileged
users don't want to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin 2012-10-18
12:51:28 UTC ---
If you attach a mockup, I can easily write the corresponding code.
This new big notice should only be visible to users with no privileges, right?
I guess that all users with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Bug #: 54973
Summary: [bugzilla] make "Before reporting a bug" notice more
prominent
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
I have a biz worth 25 M USD, Email me at
lwang1...@yahoo.com.cn for more information
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52304
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52304
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.5.2
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52304
Vinicius Tinti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26697|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52304
--- Comment #2 from Vinicius Tinti 2012-02-18
09:54:19 UTC ---
Hello Jonathan,
Sorry my mistake, I forget to remove the build folder content. There are only
things generated by CMake. Please just do rm -rf build/* and try to run CMake
again insi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52304
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52304
Bug #: 52304
Summary: Gcc does not notice missing header instead it shows a
warning. The compiled code may work or not.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31352
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-13
22:36:37 UTC ---
On the trunk we get warnings while building GCC about the mismatch of the
documentation of the options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50424
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50424
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-16
21:16:19 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Sep 16 21:16:16 2011
New Revision: 178918
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178918
Log:
PR c++/50424
* call.c (set_flags_from_calle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50424
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-16
21:13:47 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Sep 16 21:13:42 2011
New Revision: 178917
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178917
Log:
PR c++/50424
* tree.c (bot_manip): Set cp_f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50424
Bug #: 50424
Summary: G++ doesn't notice possible throw from default
argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-09 19:02 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-07 15:44 ---
Subject: Bug 43176
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Mar 7 15:44:11 2010
New Revision: 157264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157264
Log:
PR debug/43176
* Makefile.in (var-tracking.o): De
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-06 09:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=20035)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20035&action=view)
gcc45-pr43176.patch
Updated patch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-05 15:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=20028)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20028&action=view)
gcc45-pr43176.patch
Patch I'm currently testing. It revamps completely cur_loc handling, cur_loc
is always NULL
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 13:48 ---
The disadvantage of clearing cur_loc in check_changed_vars_{1,2} is that we'd
lose track of the preferred location.
I guess we want to prefer the previous cur_loc (at least if it in the end
results in REG or MEM or if
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 13:17 ---
There is another very important issue and that is that
emit_note_insn_var_location and vt_expand_loc_callback completely ignores
cur_loc, but the code that decides whether a variable actually changed uses
heavily cur_l
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 15:56 ---
The reason for the two different VALUEs for the same thing here (where we have
just one normal bb) is that vt_add_function_parameters does
cselib_lookup/cselib_preserve_value calls after processing the last bb, so of
c
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 12:40 ---
Small correction, VALUE 13:13 has initial location %edi, before it is
equivalenced to VALUE 2:2. So, at that point it is fine to have 13:13 as
cur_loc for VALUE 2:2, it is the same as having %edi there directly as cur
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 12:10 ---
So, the problem seems to be in the equivalencing of VALUEs. val_resolve does:
1659/* Map incoming equivalences. ??? Wouldn't it be nice if
1660 we just started sharing the location lists? Maybe a
1661 ci
irst call (also correct), but at the end of function it does:
movl%ebx, %eax
popq%rbx
and of course the restoring of %rbx invalidates the location (so var-tracking
should say that i now lives in %eax instead).
--
Summary: var-tracking fails to notice a value change
ATTENTION,
Onetelnet has notice that your webmail account has been compromised by spammers
by gaining access to your webmail account and have been using it for illegal
internet activities. You are requested to provide your current login
credentials to enable us reset your webmail account
--- Comment #2 from jpr at csc dot fi 2008-09-19 09:25 ---
This invalid peace of code gives an ICE:
program test
integer, pointer :: a(:),b(:)
a(1) => b(1)
end program test
gfortran -c test.f90
test.f90: In function 'test':
test.f90:3: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at
--- Comment #1 from jpr at csc dot fi 2008-09-19 08:20 ---
Small update: this bug is already present in 4.3.1.
The 4.2.x series seems OK.
Juha
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37580
rds, Juha
--
Summary: invalid code accepted without notice
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reporte
erent interpretations in
different langauges.
--
Summary: gcc -v --help doesn't notice when front-ends
documentation differs for same option
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-09 10:32 ---
This is the second time you guys have filed this one.
Anyways this is a dup of bug 23144.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23144 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
0
Earlier versions of GCC noticed the syntax error, though produced the
somewhat delphic "parameter "x" has just a forward declaration".
--
Summary: gcc 4 does not notice C syntax error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFI
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-19 15:54 ---
This is a dup of bug 23144 which was already known.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23144 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/354700]
$ cat >t.c
int foo(int x;) { }
$ gcc-3.4 -c t.c
t.c:1: error: parameter "x" has just a forward declaration
$ gcc-4.0 -c t.c
$ echo $?
0
$ gcc-4.1 -c t.c
$ echo $?
0
--
Summary: [4.0/4.1 regression] gcc 4 does not no
--
Bug 21090 depends on bug 18373, which changed state.
Bug 18373 Summary: [meta-bug] VRP Value Range Propagation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18373
What|Old Value |New Value
---
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21090
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:07 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
02:57 ---
Subject: Bug 21090
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-02 02:57:15
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c tree-flow.h
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-18
19:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
and &h.
--
Summary: VRP does not notice nonzero-ness from a PHI node
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimizati
95 matches
Mail list logo
