https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60554
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Luchezar Belev from comment #0)
> consider this simple function:
> int is_float_negative(int x) { return (int)(x ^ 0x8000) > 0; }
>
> for x86, with options "-O3 -march=core2", GCC 4.8.2 gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
works for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60554
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 11 08:40:59 2017
New Revision: 244304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/50199
* lto-lang.c (lto_post_options): Forc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79050
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, lto
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79054
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I get
> ./cc1 -quiet t.c -O2 -Wall -Walloc-size-larger-than=1234 -fdump-tree-all-alias
t.c: In function ‘foo’:
t.c:18:3: warning: argument 1 range [1236, 2147483647] exceeds maximum object
size 1234 [-Wallo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79052
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I'll take care of the gimple-parser.c part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79056
Bug ID: 79056
Summary: [C++17] ICE with broken deduction guide
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79056
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A slightly different example:
template
struct unique_ptr
{
template
unique_ptr(V) { }
};
template struct default_delete { };
template unique_ptr(T*) -> unique_ptr;
int main()
{
unique_ptr u(new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78142
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
The test is still failing, but we haven't had the time to look at it yet. My
initial patch to just tweak the commandline was rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79050
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The "simplest" way would be to have separate UNSPECs for all ops (but that
> explodes the number of unspecs I guess). Currently we get
>
> (insn 21 20 22 (parallel [
> (set (reg:V16SF 110)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79057
Bug ID: 79057
Summary: Lra reloads to used register
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79057
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 40501
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40501&action=edit
reload output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78852
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78852
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> The testcase in Comment 1 doesn't ICE for me with trunk.
Yes, even the original testcase doesn't ICE anymore on trunk.
Would be good to know which revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78852
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Right, let me see.
/nilfs2/sufile.c source, compressed
While building Linux kernel randconfigs with today's gcc snapshot
(arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-7.0.0 (GCC) 7.0.0 20170111 (experimental)), I ran into
an ICE:
/home/arnd/cross-gcc/bin/arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-7.0.0 -Os -mbig-endian -Wall
-Wno-pointer-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78852
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I think Jakub's reduced example is valid, and should deduce C.
But I think the original example is invalid, the initializer-list constructor
can be deduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> But I think the original example is invalid, the initializer-list
> constructor can be deduced.
Oops, I mean *can't* be deduced. I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78767
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igorr at il dot ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78852
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Mark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78767
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71747
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 70776 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70776
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79031
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g++bug at oxyware dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78572
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78897
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78495
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> The "simplest" way would be to have separate UNSPECs for all ops (but that
> explodes the number of unspecs I guess).
Would that be so bad? As far as gcc understa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77790
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79052
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 11 11:26:59 2017
New Revision: 244310
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244310&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-11 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/79052
* gimp
raints.c (simplify_operand_subreg): In the MEM case, test
the alignment of the adjusted memory reference against that of MODE,
instead of the alignment of the original memory reference.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20170111-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79032
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78894
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, but I'm wrong about the initializer-list constructor.
http://wg21.link/p0512r0 made changes that make it valid (but our
implementation might not have those changes yet).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79054
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, reassoc has code to do this but it runs too late (after VRP1). With all
early opts we have running it earlier might be an option (for GCC 8).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase:
enum { NILFS_SEGMENT_USAGE_ACTIVE, NILFS_SEGMENT_USAGE_DIRTY } a;
void fn2 (long long);
void fn1() {
int b = a & 1 << NILFS_SEGMENT_USAGE_DIRTY;
fn2 (b ? (long long) -1 :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79032
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Cederman ---
Thanks for fixing it so quickly. Everything seems to be working now on my side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps use the TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN target hook? Though if that
hook rejects all doloop insns, that would mean you can't combine into the
doloop insns created by the doloop pass, not sure if it w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66284
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://wg21.link/lwg2781
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78389
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78134
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's not returning S::const_iterator, if it was the assertion would pass
because S::iterator and S::const_iterator are the same type. The problem is
that it's returning _Rb_tree::iterator rather than wrappi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78134
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Same bug as PR 68190.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it is rtl_split_edge and patch_jump_insn not being able to deal with
such conditional jump insns. It has code to deal e.g. with degenerate asm goto
and similar insns. Note, I'm not really sure what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 11 12:57:42 2017
New Revision: 244314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79042
* lto-cgraph.c (lto_output_varp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
Bug ID: 79059
Summary: Information from CCmode is not propagated across basic
blocks
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
The same error occurs with 4.9.4, 5.4.1 and 6.3.0. I haven't seen it on hpux.
This made me think
that it might be configuration related. The error doesn't occur if I add
"--disable-lto --witho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #4)
> However, then I get an ICE building libgo:
Please see [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00647.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Somewhat related to PR78200 (x86 has the CCmodes nicely combined but the
branches are the wrong order).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61450
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > If it helps, I can take care of the packaging.
>
> PING!
REPING!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79053
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I wonder if this is related to pr78892
pr78892 is fixed, while this PR is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71199
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Somewhat related to PR78200 (x86 has the CCmodes nicely combined but the
> branches are the wrong order).
Indeed it is related. It is [expectedly] mcf's prima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72798
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58644
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I believe that my imminent fix for PR63205 will correct this issue
> and so eliminate this PR.
With a clean trunk at r244231, I see
subpr2_array (&atmp.39);
AFAIU this PR is not "elimina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78944
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Sorokin ---
I retested these cases on a more recent version of binutils 2.27. It turned out
that the first three cases are fixed.
The last one still causes a crash. Here is a more simple reprocase:
$ c++filt _Z1fAqu4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77598
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The warning is gone with r242523.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 11 14:44:04 2017
New Revision: 244317
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244317&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR78273 fix count to work with partitioning function
PR libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78134
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 11 14:44:15 2017
New Revision: 244318
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244318&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR78134 fix return types of heterogeneous lookup functions
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
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=78134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.4 |5.5
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > So do you want something like:
> > /* { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicts with multilib options" { arm*-*-* } {
> > "-mcpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78397
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The __aeabi_read_tp call is to a special helper function and not really
considered to be a 'public interface'; the EABI only requires conformance to
the stack alignment constraints at public interfaces.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
FYI: -mtune=cortex-a15 works for an arm-none-eabi toolchain targetting
Cortex-M7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
--- Comment #15 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: avieira
Date: Wed Jan 11 15:08:25 2017
New Revision: 244319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE
gcc/Chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78604
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78604
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> So, is what gcc trunk generates less efficient than what it used to generate
> before, or is just different? If the latter, surely the test should be
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Unless people commonly use
> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-mtune=cortex-a15,-mtune=cortex-m7\}' or
> something similar, that might work well. The amo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79060
Bug ID: 79060
Summary: gfortran ICE with deferred-length character component
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
Bug ID: 79061
Summary: [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with
"AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
>
> > Unless people commonly use
> > RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-mtune=cortex-a15,-mtune=cortex-m7\}' o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|poerpc64*-*-* |poerpc64*-*-*,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
--- Comment #4 from Boris Kolpackov ---
Another question is whether GCC guarantees that its APIs (as can be used by a
plugin; e.g., AST) are binary compatible across Y.Z in GCC X.Y.Z?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no such guarantee, it can change any time, even in changes not
reflected in X.Y.Z version. That said, after X.1 is released, they change not
very frequently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79060
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77812
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78253
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Wed Jan 11 16:13:14 2017
New Revision: 244320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/78253 Call weak function instead of strong when called t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79041
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Robert Schiele from comment #3)
> If you point me to the specific patch that you have in mind I can in
> parallel already test whether besides the test case I provided it also fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
--- Comment #3 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 11 16:53:52 2017
New Revision: 244324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244324&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79042
* lto-cgraph.c (lto_output_varp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61450
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Can regtest it and submit it to the list for review? Many thanks…
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78877
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 11 17:25:40 2017
New Revision: 244325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Offer suggestions for unrecognized sanitizer options (PR driver/78877)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jan 11 17:28:52 2017
New Revision: 244326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/78768 - -Walloca-larger-than and -Wformat-length warnings disabled by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77812
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
The struct variant only 'works' because 'struct X' is a valid incomplete struct
declaration. Try:
struct f {};
template
void f ()
{
struct f Q;
}
template void f ();
void f() void f() [with = int]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78877
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79062
Bug ID: 79062
Summary: -Wformat-length warnings disabled by -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
