https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you try -fsanitize=address -fsanitize=undefined ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
Yanai Eliyahu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yanai.eli11 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79952
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
static auto get_wrapped_number() {
return [i = 1] { return &i; };
}
This seems like you could reference a variable which has gone out of scope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #5 from Yanai ---
but if I still hold the lambda locally,
shouldn't it point to inside the lambda's storage?
See that I still hold no_pie_2 when accessing the variable that I got from it's
lambda object.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
MEM[(struct &)&D.35987] ={v} {CLOBBER};
MEM[(struct __lambda0 *)&D.35987] = 1;
D.35987.v = &MEM[(const struct __lambda0 *)&D.35987].__i;
D.35988 = D.35987;
D.35987 ={v} {CLOBBER};
_2 = MEM[(const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
[t1.cc:10:9] MEM[(struct &)[t1.cc:17:42] &D.35987] ={v} {CLOBBER};
[t1.cc:10:47] [t1.cc:10:47] MEM[(struct __lambda0 *)&D.35987] = 1;
[t1.cc:10:47] [t1.cc:10:47] D.35987.v = [t1.cc:24:29] &[t1.cc:24:20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #8 from Yanai ---
Even though I don't understand this low level prints of GCC (which I interested
in how you got them),
can you tell me how in a manner I can understand how that pointer
pointed to an automatic storage (I assume)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #9 from Yanai ---
I don't mean step by step, but in which statement I created that lambda's
storage and destroyed it, and between used it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yanai from comment #8)
> Even though I don't understand this low level prints of GCC (which I
> interested in how you got them),
> can you tell me how in a manner I can understand how that point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79993
Bug ID: 79993
Summary: ICE in tree_to_uhwi, at tree.c:7344
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #12 from Yanai ---
It took me 5 minutes to guess that it polluted my home folder, but thanks
anyway.
More semi-on-topic: I have another potential bug (aside 4 others), the bug
is that the compiler says there's no ::type in enable_if,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fails with -O2 -fselective-scheduling -mcpu=power8; also on BE, does not
fail with power7. Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 40944
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40944&action=edit
Patch for reshape
Does this fix the issues in reshape?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #12 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Mar 10 20:53:18 2017
New Revision: 246058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-03-10 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #16 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15)
> Created attachment 40944 [details]
> Patch for reshape
>
> Does this fix the issues in reshape?
No. The warning happens on line 266 and you patch change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78911
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Mar 10 21:17:13 2017
New Revision: 246059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78911
* lra-assigns.c (must_not_spil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78911
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Infinite |[5/6 Regression] Infinite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79991
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79994
Bug ID: 79994
Summary: Concepts technical specification
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79995
Bug ID: 79995
Summary: Messages for iWMMXt builtins could use some cleanup
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
On the one hand, I would like to see that libgfortran can be
compiled on any platform.
On the other hand, the options that I currently see (such as making
the for loop into a do/while loop, pre-initializing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79995
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79926
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79926
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79848
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996
Bug ID: 79996
Summary: spurious -Wreturn-type on a function that calls a
noreturn function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79925
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Sat Mar 11 01:40:04 2017
New Revision: 246066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
aarch64.c: tweaks to quoting in error messages (PR target/79925)
gcc/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79925
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79923
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Sat Mar 11 01:43:48 2017
New Revision: 246067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove trailing period from various diagnostic messages (PR translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79923
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79848
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Sat Mar 11 01:57:11 2017
New Revision: 246068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246068&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Simplify uses of "%<%s%>" to "%qs" (PR translation/79848)
gcc/c-family
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79848
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #19 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The reshape issue also happens with -O2.
Thomas the issue is easily reproducible with a stage-1 cross
(--target=powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu) and the attached testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #20 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The following fixes the warning for me:
diff --git a/libgfortran/m4/reshape.m4 b/libgfortran/m4/reshape.m4
index 787844ec42d..42379d58a29 100644
--- a/libgfortran/m4/reshape.m4
+++ b/libgfortran/m4/re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 11, 2017 12:39:38 AM GMT+01:00, "tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
>
>--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
>On the one hand, I wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79997
Bug ID: 79997
Summary: simple-ssa-sprintf i18n: wrong plural form in
maybe_warn
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
