https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57580
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 6+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
--- Comment #4 from Georg Koppen ---
It is using -lasan it seems:
Executing: c++ -o firefox -Wall -Wempty-body -Woverloaded-virtual
-Wsign-compare -Wwrite-strings -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wcast-align -v
-fsanitize=address -Dxmalloc=myxmalloc -fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68639
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
/home/thomas/Arbeit/Tor/mozilla-central/xpcom/glue/standalone/nsXPCOMGlue.cpp:167:
error: undefined reference to 'dlerror'
That does look like it is actually one of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68639
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 3 08:38:10 2015
New Revision: 231220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68639
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67800
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 3 08:43:22 2015
New Revision: 231221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/67800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68333
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 3 08:43:22 2015
New Revision: 231221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/67800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68513
--- Comment #11 from Jan Smets ---
Thanks. Can this also be backported to 5.x? Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68668
Bug ID: 68668
Summary: [6 Regression] bogus error: invalid use of array with
unspecified bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68668
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 67800, which changed state.
Bug 67800 Summary: [6 Regression] Missed vectorization opportunity on x86
(DOT_PROD_EXPR in non-reduction)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67800
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68668
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68667
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68232
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68651
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-* |powerpc-*-*, arm*-*-*
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68620
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2015-12-3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-12-03 00:00:00 |2015-12-02 0:00
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68620
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68620
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Maybe, that's what I'm trying to figure out.
Given the comment in arm.h before the definition of CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS,
maybe we need to define more patterns, for all the sizes where
CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812
>
> Jan Hubicka changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68513
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
No, this isn't something we'd want to backport I think, For GCC 5, we'll need
another (but trivial) fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Bug ID: 68669
Summary: -Wunused-variable is not correctly supressed by
#pragmas
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Celba ---
Created attachment 36893
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36893&action=edit
Preprocessed run_tests.cpp
Added the pre-processed run_tests.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68670
Bug ID: 68670
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/pr68376-2.c
FAILs with -ftracer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66051
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 3 11:26:56 2015
New Revision: 231225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66051
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66051
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 66051, which changed state.
Bug 66051 Summary: can't vectorize reductions inside an SLP group
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66051
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68671
Bug ID: 68671
Summary: [5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr66952.c FAILs with
-fno-tree-dce
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
Bug ID: 68672
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] g++.dg/torture/pr68470.C: ICE:
cannot update SSA form: statement uses released SSA
name
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68673
Bug ID: 68673
Summary: Handle __builtin_GOMP_task optimally in ipa-pta
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68674
Bug ID: 68674
Summary: ARM attribute target neon warning: incompatible
implicit declaration of built-in function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 36897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36897&action=edit
gcc6-pr68655.patch
Initial untested patch. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be always a win,
when looking at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68675
Bug ID: 68675
Summary: Handle GOMP_target_ext optimally in ipa-pta
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68674
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||65837
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 36897
> --> https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Version|5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
--- Comment #6 from Georg Koppen ---
Alright, thanks. So, what happens with r215527 is that checking for dlopen()
working properly in the configure script is not enough anymore to decide
whether one needs -ldl needs to get added explicitly if add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
Georg Koppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68671
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess it needs analysis.
Some examples of changes:
vshuf-v16qi.c -msse2 test_2, scalar code vs. punpcklqdq, clear win
vshuf-v16qi.c -msse4 test_2, pshufb -> punpcklqdq (is this a win or not?)
(similarly for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68670
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68670
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68676
Bug ID: 68676
Summary: ICE in gfc_match_formal_arglist when compiling
gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I guess it needs analysis.
> Some examples of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68556
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68545
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68676
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|alphaev68-linux-gnu |alphaev68-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68434
--- Comment #5 from ryan.burn at gmail dot com ---
reduction for the other test case:
template
struct is_same {
static constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68139
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68636
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Can you try the following w/o the asm?
typedef unsigned long uintptr_t;;
volatile unsigned int x;
void testTestTest(int zeroIsCavium)
{
x = *((volatile unsigned int *) (((volatile void *)((uintptr_t)(0x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68624
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Dec 3 13:28:55 2015
New Revision: 231226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RTL-ifcvt] PR rtl-optimization/68624: Clean up logic that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68624
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68668
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips-wrs-vxworks
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68636
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
And we also return true thus "known" which will override the type alignment
present on the MEM_REF:
/* When EXP is an actual memory reference then we can use
TYPE_ALIGN of a pointer indirecti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I see the same problem with
program test_count
integer, dimension(2,3) :: a, b
logical, dimension(2,3) :: mask
integer :: i(2), j(3)
a = reshape( (/ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 /), (/ 2, 3 /))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #6 from Man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> Perhaps you need to try with -Wunused-const-variable ? There may be some
> problem with TREE_READONLY (decl).
There is no -Wunused-const-variable in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68620
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Does that mean we need to define a movv4hf pattern?
Isn't *neon_mov providing this (with the VDX iterator)
I think what's not matching here is (set (subreg:SI (reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68471
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Dec 3 14:17:35 2015
New Revision: 231228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix some issues with the ROP patch (PR 68471, 68472)
PR target/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I think the problem is that it's actually working. The optional arguments are
> removed... When they are not present, the procedure declaration also loses
> them.
Well, it is not how I read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68472
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Dec 3 14:17:35 2015
New Revision: 231228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix some issues with the ROP patch (PR 68471, 68472)
PR target/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Further reduced test
REAL*8 :: a8(16),b8(4,4), c8(16), d8(4,4)
c8=RESHAPE(b8,(/16/))
d8=RESHAPE(a8,(/4,4/))
END
> Notice the difference in size of the records.
How do they relate to the array siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> > Perhaps you need to try with -Wunused-const-variable ? There may be some
> > problem with TREE_R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And no, precomputing the permutations isn't going to work, there are just too
many of them, and the amount of permutation instructions on i?86 is huge too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, why don't you answer these questions yourself?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
Bug ID: 68677
Summary: Sibcall doesn't work on function with no return
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36897|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68669
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|manu at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #10 from Manue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68655
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It's a feature for debugging of abort()-like calls. And in this case it's
a tailcall as well (which is probably what you are after).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68678
Bug ID: 68678
Summary: Initialization of pointer by constant expression using
static ctor.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68673
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
--- Comment #6 from Sergey Organov ---
For reference, the work-around for the problem is __attribute__((gnu_inline)),
i.e., effectively turning inlining mode back to pre-c99.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68677
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe this is intentional and has been discussed in the past.
E.g. one of the often used noreturn functions is abort and its callers, in that
case we better not sibcall to that, as it will be harder to fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65745
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68599
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Dec 3 15:40:08 2015
New Revision: 231231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR tree-optimization/68599] Avoid over-zealous optimization with
-funsafe-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> > I think the problem is that it's actually working. The optional arguments
> > are
> > removed... When they are not present, the procedure declaration al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68599
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68668
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm using slightly adjusted testcase:
typedef const int T[];
int
fn1 (T p)
{
return p[0];
}
It looks like grokdeclarator creates a wrong type for PARM_DECL "p". It says
its type is "const int[] *", but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> In this case, the argument _is_ present, so it's not removed in the procedure
> declaration. This seems to be done on purpose (grep for ignore_optional) but
> I
> must admit that I don't understand
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
