https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 7 08:19:48 2015
New Revision: 219278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/64417
c/
* c-typeck.c (process_init_element): Disallow ini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64440
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 7 08:21:50 2015
New Revision: 219279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/64440
* c-common.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Warn for divis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64440
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64518
Bug ID: 64518
Summary: Warning about comparison between signed and unsigned
can be useless in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64519
Bug ID: 64519
Summary: variadic template as the first argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64507
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, the code could be slightly better by factorizing the return sequences
;; check length
mov#0,r0
;; goto .l2
;; else init r1,r0
;; goto .l1
.l2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64509
--- Comment #4 from Martien de Jong ---
I understand. What a shallow and ugly feature it is then. I think it can only
usefully be employed using a preprocessor macro, yet it is part of the
expression syntax. It is meant to resolve type issues, y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64353
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64353
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This really worries me a lot, when -fcheck-pointer-bounds is not enabled, I'd
really hope that the ipa-chkp changes make no difference at all on the
generated code or order of passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349
--- Comment #4 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Author: charlet
Date: Wed Jan 7 10:15:18 2015
New Revision: 219290
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219290&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-07 Vincent Celier
* clean.adb: Minor error message chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64518
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick.pelissier at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64520
Bug ID: 64520
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE with std::initializer_list
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521
Bug ID: 64521
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] ICE with -frepo
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64522
Bug ID: 64522
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Free-form source code:
-Wline-truncation is no longer enabled by default
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Harald,
Happy New Year! I have been away in Claifornia these last few weeks and
just got back last night.
I am working with Andre on pr60255 tonight. Once this is done, we should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56025
--- Comment #5 from Tejas Belagod ---
ACLE states that
"poly8_t and poly16_t are defined as unsigned integer types. It is unspecified
whether these are the same type as uint8_t and uint16_t for overloading and
mangling purposes"
Presently, pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #3 from Chen Gang ---
It still exists in gcc version 5.0.0 20141109 (experimental) (GCC), I shall try
to solve it.
Hope I can finish within 2 months.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 34394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34394&action=edit
Patch to add -latomic only when available; -p0 -d path/to/gcc/testsuite
David, could you please check if t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63658
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:17:59 2015
New Revision: 219305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63658
* pt.c (convert_nontype_argument): Call convert_from_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63657
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:05 2015
New Revision: 219306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63657
PR c++/38958
* call.c (set_up_extended_ref_temp):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38958
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:05 2015
New Revision: 219306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63657
PR c++/38958
* call.c (set_up_extended_ref_temp):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:16 2015
New Revision: 219307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219307&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64029
* decl.c (grok_reference_init): Complete array type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64251
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:27 2015
New Revision: 219309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219309&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64251
* decl2.c (mark_used): Don't mark if in_template_func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64297
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:21 2015
New Revision: 219308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64297
* typeck.c (apply_memfn_quals): Correct wrong TYPE_CA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64352
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:32 2015
New Revision: 219310
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219310&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64352
* pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build): Pass complain to mark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64487
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 7 15:18:39 2015
New Revision: 219311
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219311&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64487
* semantics.c (finish_offsetof): Handle templates her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-07 10:03 AM, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> David, could you please check if the attached patch still works for
> hppa*-*-hpux*?
I've added your patch to my hpux tree for testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63886
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63886
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> Seems like there's nothing to do for this bug.
Suggest there are two cases
1. double to float
2. double or float into any integer type.
The one warning, pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63886
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64520
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
--- Comment #12 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Hi Paul, hi Tobias,
I am guilty in asking both of you to look at the issue. I would be very happy,
if one of you two can really have a look into the issue and notify the other
one, that he found a reaso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61204
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Jan 7 16:14:50 2015
New Revision: 219316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/61204
* go-gcc.cc (Gcc_backend::temporary_variable):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
Bug ID: 64524
Summary: gcc can't detect same expression in both parts of
ternary operator
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64525
Bug ID: 64525
Summary: Duplicate instructions in both paths in conditional
code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64525
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
compiler options:
arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -O3 -S test.c
arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/kugan/work/builds/gcc-fsf-gcc/tools/bin/arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Should it complain only when the expressions are the same (e.g. token-wise),
> or even when just two different expressions have the same value?
> I mean, say:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
Well, tokenwise comparison is difficult, as lots of things are folded early.
So if you don't mind the same value as folding, implementing that wouldn't be
that ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
Bug ID: 64526
Summary: No warning on function call with excessive arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527
Bug ID: 64527
Summary: Constructor for empty struct not called in some
situations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64528
Bug ID: 64528
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: in process_constraint, at
tree-ssa-structalias.c:3002 with -O -fno-tree-ccp
-fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60753
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64529
Bug ID: 64529
Summary: Noexcept New
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is also a style warning. And really here is another false positive:
#define a 1
#define b 1
int t = c > d ? a : b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59354
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> And really here is another false positive:
> #define a 1
> #define b 1
>
> int t = c > d ? a : b;
Assuming you meant
int t = (c > d) ? a : b;
then I'd be in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64524
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
Sorry, typo in my original code. Better code:
enum E { a, b, c, d };
void f(int val)
{
int n = (val >= 10) ? a : (d - 3);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527
--- Comment #1 from Brett Simmers ---
Sorry, the attachment should be named ctor.cpp. I didn't realize it was a
filename and not a text description.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530
Bug ID: 64530
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Incorrect calculation when assigning
to array with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64531
Bug ID: 64531
Summary: `casting between pointer-to-function and
pointer-to-object` is still a warning instead of error
with `-pedantic -pedantic-errors`
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37440
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56867
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Jan 7 22:31:54 2015
New Revision: 219325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-08 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/5686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
Chengnian Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
ng built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
Target: arm-linux-gnueabi
Configured with: ../../gcc/configure --target=arm-linux-gnueabi
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150107 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64349
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
baoshan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pangbw at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64530
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
"has no parameters" does not mean "has a type that includes a prototype
with no parameters". See DR#317.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_317.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63900
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64533
Bug ID: 64533
Summary: [5 Regression] [SH] alloca generates unsafe code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36557
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jan 8 03:46:41 2015
New Revision: 219336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/36557
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (*eqsi3_ext, *nesi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #2)
> x is an integer "w" floating point constraint. I think you need a cast here
> as below.
>
> __attribute__((noinline)) float s32_to_f32_imm1(int x)
> {
> float y;
> _
76 matches
Mail list logo
