https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79494
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79348
--- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt ---
Yep, fixed.(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Should be fixed now.
Yep, fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79496
Bug ID: 79496
Summary: call to snprintf eliminated with -Wformat-truncation=2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79497
Bug ID: 79497
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79498
Bug ID: 79498
Summary: ICE in df_insn_delete, at df-scan.c:948
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79498
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
No ICE seen with gcc version 6.3.1 20170131.
On my environment, gcc-5.4.1 gives :
$ gcc-5-20170110 -mcmodel=large -O2 -c pr78526.c
pr78526.c: In function 'bar':
pr78526.c:11:1: warning: AVX512F vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #53 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #51)
> With r245382 plus the patch from comment 43, only the failure in
> null-deref-1.c is left.
Ah, not quite; no fails with -m31; with -m64 null-deref-1.c fails with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79448
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Ouch. When its size argument is zero, a snprintf call is a request to compute
the size of output without actually writing any into the destination (which may
be a null pointer). At level 2 the checker uses t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79493
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79499
Bug ID: 79499
Summary: ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at cfgrtl.c:2661
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79403
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79296
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Feb 13 18:12:17 2017
New Revision: 245400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79296 - ICE mangling localized template instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79296
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79479
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79479
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #25 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #24)
> Do we happen to have easy access to the pressure at the various program
> points? Dumping that with the points might prove fruitful in both the
> search fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79482
Remy NOEL changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79492
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79491
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79479
--- Comment #7 from Paul Eggert ---
> the translation of a program that contains an overflowing constant expression
> has undefined behavior
Sure, but the programs in question do not contain constant expressions in sense
of the C standard. They
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79482
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I didn't say it's solved, I said its the same. Notice that Bug 65656 is still
open, because it isn't fixed properly yet.
But since that's for C++ and this is for C we can keep both open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79492
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 06:54:16PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> The suggested back is
s/back/fix
> Index: trans-expr.c
> ===
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79232
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 13 19:31:14 2017
New Revision: 245401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79232
* typeck.c (cp_build_modify_expr): Handle pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79232
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79461
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79479
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
I understand the distinction, but I don't think it would be helpful to try to
make it in the implementation of the warning, for a few reasons:
1) It's too subtle for non-expert programmers to understand.
2) I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79482
--- Comment #4 from Remy NOEL ---
Ha indeed, my bad.
I was confused by the fact that he original problem of the linked ticket is
solved (and also because the last comment targets the fix for an old release
which made me though it was either solv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79478
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Mon Feb 13 21:40:51 2017
New Revision: 245406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-13 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79478
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
David, could you please confirm if r245406 fixes the error for you ?
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.0
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79494
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79495
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79497
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79498
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
A somewhat simplified test case:
void f (int n)
{
int a[n][n];
[&a]() { }();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79479
--- Comment #9 from Paul Eggert ---
> 1) It's too subtle for non-expert programmers to understand.
Actually, it's typically easy for non-experts to follow this. For example,
although GCC falsely warns about this:
/*1*/ if (0) return INT_MAX +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79461
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 13 22:31:12 2017
New Revision: 245410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79461 - ICE with lambda in constexpr constructor
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79461
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] [C++1z] |[5/6 Regression] [C++1z]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 40730
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40730&action=edit
fix
Here's a fix; I'm inclined to hold it for GCC 8, now that the trunk is in
regression-only mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 40731
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40731&action=edit
patch for DR 1071
Relatedly, here's a patch to implement DR 1071, which is the error clang gives.
But this bre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 40732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40732&action=edit
fix
Here's a fix; I'm inclined to hold it for GCC 8, now that the trunk is in
regression-only mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #54 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 13 23:09:09 2017
New Revision: 245411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/79341
* c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overfl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79458
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79495
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79273
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2017-01-30 00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79479
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This is arguably the same as or similar to bug 4210 and its duplicates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79498
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 40734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40734&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909
Brooks Moses changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79273
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79500
Bug ID: 79500
Summary: non-template deduction guides cause crash
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79501
Bug ID: 79501
Summary: member deduction guide not recognized
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79479
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, bug 4210 looks like a duplicate. The test case from attachment 40722
recast in the context of that enhancement request looks like this:
int too_large (long x)
{
const int b = sizeof (int) < si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79496
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Feb 14 04:38:54 2017
New Revision: 245415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79496 - call to snprintf with zero size eliminated with
-Wfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
Bug ID: 79502
Summary: [[nodiscard]] attribute ignored for class template
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||38172
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
INVALID means it is not a gcc bug, glibc has a separate bugzilla.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79498
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Created attachment 40734 [details]
> A patch
>
> I am testing this.
Patch is pre-approved for mainline and release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79503
Bug ID: 79503
Summary: [new inheriting ctors] spurious bad candidate from
same or derived type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40735&action=edit
gcc7-pr79502.patch
Untested fix. The bug as I see is that we don't actually propagate the
attributes from temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 14 07:58:12 2017
New Revision: 245417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/79432
* tre
101 - 168 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
