https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 21 07:59:32 2016
New Revision: 232663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69355
* tree-dfa.c (get_ref_base_and_extent): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69403
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt ---
Looks good, the errors are gone now. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clm at codesourcery dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69347
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
A goodly amount of the problem is PRE (rtl-pre):
gcc-5:
PRE : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
0 kB ( 0%) ggc
PRE : 11.16 (34%) usr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67781
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Jan 21 08:29:28 2016
New Revision: 232664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-21 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems the bug is somewhere around wi::divmod_internal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69378
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 21 08:50:38 2016
New Revision: 232666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232666&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69378
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #12 from Dominik Vogt ---
Regarding the Glibc fix; do you mean this commit?
2016-01-11 13:34 Adhemerval Zanella * Fix isinf/isnan
declaration conflict with C++11
That does *not* fix the isnan and isinf errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, there were tons of richi's SLP changes in the last 10 days. Where one
of those changes make this bug latent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The dividend is val = {-1, 0}, len = 2 (bah, we need a debug_wide_int for
gdb use!)
We do
n = divisor_blocks_needed;
while (n > 1 && b_divisor[n - 1] == 0)
n--;
stripping the leading zeros and fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Give a cost model change exposed this I suspect the cost mode fix (PR68961) hid
this again. Just debug the issue ontop of r231674 please - it is definitely
a latent issue. Or try -fno-vect-cost-model on g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408
Bug ID: 69408
Summary: LD crashes with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69117
Bug 69117 depends on bug 69378, which changed state.
Bug 69378 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr61034.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69378
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> so in int_const_binop we end up with val = {-2 }, len = 1 (that's still
I think already this is wrong, because I think val = { -2 }, len = 1 for
precision 128 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408
--- Comment #2 from night_ghost at ykoctpa dot ru ---
there are reqirements for reporting *language* bugs but no LTO bugs in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
I can ZIP build tree but I saw a list of all that i can send in the "we do not
want". Crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 21 09:52:46 2016
New Revision: 232668
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232668&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69187
PR target/65624
* config/arm/arm-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 21 09:52:46 2016
New Revision: 232668
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232668&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69187
PR target/65624
* config/arm/arm-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
nOn Thu, 21 Jan 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69403
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree that the pattern is buggy but I can't get the bad codegen to trigger on
any of 4.9, 5 or trunk. I get a branch over lines 26 and 27:
bug:
@ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #39 from Christophe Lyon ---
We have backported r227748, 229160 and 229161 to our linaro-gcc-5 branch, and
we got a bug report from the kernel team.
Indeed, when the kernel is configured with CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_843419, the
support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69406
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Janus,
It's good to hear from you.
As you will have seen, I have posted a fix for the first problem and
have another fix in the pipeline for the problem in comment #5.
I'll post
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58046
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed in trunk. I'm adding a testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69409
Bug ID: 69409
Summary: Internal compiler error with -fcheck=all
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
I'm running into problems testing the latest Gcc with the latest Glibc. The
test program is just
#include
It's a bit difficult to provide the propert args to g++ to make it use the
replacement Glibc aft
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58046
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 21 10:55:30 2016
New Revision: 232671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-21 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58046
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58046
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69399
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> It works fine with x32 on trunk:
>
> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -O /tmp/x.c
> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ ./a.out
> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ file ./a.out
> ./a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB exe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrestelli at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69409
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69380
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi powerpc*-*-* |arm-none-eabi powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69352
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
[Sorry for the delay, email hiccup over the last couple of days]
> CCing Eric on whether REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER should be checked in
> operand_equal_p and whether TYPE_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER doesn't have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 63427, which changed state.
Bug 63427 Summary: hwint.h:250:29: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too
large for 64-bit type 'long int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63427
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63427
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69410
Bug ID: 69410
Summary: friend declarations in local classes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69352
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> [Sorry for the delay, email hiccup over the last couple of days]
>
> > CCing Eric on whether REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER should be checked in
> > operand_equal_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69411
Bug ID: 69411
Summary: ICE on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68765
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69403
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Self-contained testcase that works form -O2 -march=armv7-a -mthumb but aborts
for -O2 -march=armv8-a -mthumb:
int a, b, c;
__attribute__ ((__noinline__)) int
fn1 ()
{
if ((b | (a != (a & c)))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69403
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69352
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> How do you ensure that? You could (perhaps through aliasing violation or
> union or what) access the same memory slot through two different MEMs, and
> if one of them has reverse and the other does not...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68765
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Status 'waiting' means: 'The submitter was asked for further information,
> or asked to try out a patch' ( https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html ).
>
> Since there's no patch to try out, nor a req
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69411
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #13)
> -- snip --
> In file included from .../git/gcc/install/include/c++/6.0.0/math.h:36:0,
>from x.C:1:
> .../gcc/install/include/c++/6.0.0/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37417
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37417&action=edit
gcc6-pr8.patch
Untested fix. Though, I wonder if mod_type_die already has some parent it
wouldn't be bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69407
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> So I believe the problem is that you need to reconfigure libstdc++ with the
> new glibc headers, you can't just drop them in later and expect an
> already-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69407
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68765
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Sorry, but I did ask further information in
>
> > Without explicit interface and the main and subroutine in different files,
> > IMO there is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
Bug ID: 69412
Summary: bootstrap-ubsan profiledbootstrap issues
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69385
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, latest trunk with
-O3 -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power8 pr67211.C -fno-vect-cost-model
still ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69413
Bug ID: 69413
Summary: [6 Regression] r232327 prevents libstdc++ working
after upgrading glibc to 2.23
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60401
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> After discussing this on IRC I'll make a change to support this use case,
> without needing to rebuild libstdc++ when glibc is updated.
I've created https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69382
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69315
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69290
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69413
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Hi,
i wan't to create aliase (name and type) for the elements of an
char-array. Unfortunately my gcc produce the warning "dereferencing
type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules", if i use -O2 or
bigger. Since i set -Werror, the warning will become an error.
I attached an example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69138
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69406
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 21 13:33:27 2016
New Revision: 232672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/69406 Fix test to check for supported headers
PR libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69406
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69380
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69377
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Does using -march=x86-64 makes the bug appear?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69377
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, it does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69357
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, my thought was that it ends up like
> cat t2.c
int x = 1;
> gcc t2.c -o libt2.so -shared -lisl -fPIC
> cat t.c
extern char _end[];
char *endp = _end;
int main()
{
}
> gcc -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--no-add-n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69414
Bug ID: 69414
Summary: [OpenACC] "!$acc update self" does not provide
expected result
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69347
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And in fact, we purposefully raised the maximum amount of memory that we allow
GCSE to allocate (precisely for this kind of function). This testcase now
comes in under that maximum limit and thus we GCSE t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69129
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Jan 21 14:07:01 2016
New Revision: 232674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69129
PR target/69012
* config/mips/mips.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69379
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
This reduced testcase started ICEing with r230365.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Jan 21 14:07:01 2016
New Revision: 232674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69129
PR target/69012
* config/mips/mips
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68769
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69129
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Also consider
typedef int myint __attribute__((align(1)));
void foo (int, int);
void bar()
{
foo ((myint)1, (myint)2);
foo (1, 2);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69379
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69377
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase for the testsuite, without relying on stdout output:
int r, *s, t, p, a, q, b;
short u = 3;
static int *v;
char c;
int cc;
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
baz (const char *p, int q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69377
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Note that this and the original testcase trigger
p.c: In function ‘foo’:
p.c:92:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
so I remember adding "return &a;" at the end of foo (it still triggers the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69399
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69329
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #1)
> I tried this patch:
>
> diff --git a/Makefile.in b/Makefile.in
> index 2733c4d..31ee4c0 100644
> --- a/Makefile.in
> +++ b/Makefile.in
> @@ -789,7 +789,8 @@ BA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68768
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69399
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115
--- Comment #18 from RGomes ---
The cproto design and usage is not broken. Everyone here agrees that a missing
include during "compilation" rightfully should generate an error. It is the
"preprocessor behavior only" where we are asking for tolera
1 - 100 of 283 matches
Mail list logo
