https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81417
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jul 27 15:02:17 2017
New Revision: 250630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81417
* c-warn.c (warn_for_sign_compare): Tweak th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81417
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
There is more to fix, e.g. diagnostic with ?:, so not marking as resolved just
yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81477
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|marxin at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57821
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57201
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60100
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25361
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53345
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81573
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 27, 2017 4:39:45 PM GMT+02:00, "seurer at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81573
>
>--- Comment #7 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>The problem in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53943
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57428
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81585
Bug ID: 81585
Summary: fastcall/stdcall attribute conflict not detected on
distinct declarations of the same function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81585
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53943
--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Osipov ---
kostja@atlas ~ % gcc -fobjc-direct-dispatch foo.m -lobjc
foo.m: In function ‘main’:
foo.m:14:9: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
@throw [Interface new];
^
Please submit a full
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67455
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53943
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Konstantin Osipov from comment #2)
> kostja@atlas ~ % gcc -fobjc-direct-dispatch foo.m -lobjc
You still left off the -fobjc-exceptions flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53716
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77481
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40864
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68034
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53075
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
Bug ID: 81586
Summary: valgrind error in output_buffer_append_r with -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64762
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45784
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81514
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The following much reduced C++ code seems to demonstrate the bug:
extern "C" int snprintf(char *, unsigned long, const char *...) ;
struct S {
char * a;
};
void f( S * af)
{
snprintf(af->a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81587
Bug ID: 81587
Summary: GCC doesn't warn about calling functions that don't
exist
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81514
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
I'm able to reproduce this on Linux by replacing:
#include
with:
namespace std
{
extern int sprintf (char *dst, const char *format, ...);
};
On Linux, the include of stdio.h seems to have bee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
Bug ID: 81588
Summary: Wrong code at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41827
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
With -fdirectives-only locations go bananas:
#include
int f1 (int x)
{
switch (x)
{
case 1: x++; // FALLTHRU
case 2: x--; /* FALLTHRU */
case 3: x++; // line #9
case 4: return x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40040
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546
Bug 24546 depends on bug 40040, which changed state.
Bug 40040 Summary: gfortran invalid DW_AT_location for overridable variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40040
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81589
Bug ID: 81589
Summary: Possible False-Positive with decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81589
--- Comment #1 from Hunter L. Allen ---
Created attachment 41850
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41850&action=edit
preprocesed file (compressed)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52900
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81577
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79162
--- Comment #16 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> Thanks, Daniel. Let's reopen this to make the T -> const T& changes.
I'm now working at that problem, thereby also attempting to implement the full
P/R of L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50432
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25221
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45784
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 27 19:13:42 2017
New Revision: 250635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/45784
* c-omp.c (c_finish_omp_for): If the condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50645
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39284
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81570
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01851.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49053
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53971
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81590
Bug ID: 81590
Summary: AVX512 run-time test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81590
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
Bug ID: 81591
Summary: segmentation fault when using priorities of nested
tasks
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81592
Bug ID: 81592
Summary: spurious -Wformat-overflow warning with
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81587
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> These are declarations of nested functions, you're not using them.
Actually they are not nested functions but rather considered part of the
namespace that the fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81514
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01858.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71951
Icenowy Zheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||icenowy at aosc dot io
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81592
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't see a problem with the code in maybe_warn. It does this:
/* Buffer for the directive in the host character set (used when
the source character set is different). */
char hostdir[32];
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71951
--- Comment #11 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Icenowy Zheng from comment #10)
> In my environment (glibc 2.25, and both the building scripts of glibc and
> gcc have -fomit-frame-pointer automatically enabled), this bug is not fully
> resolved yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71951
--- Comment #12 from Icenowy Zheng ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> (In reply to Icenowy Zheng from comment #10)
> > In my environment (glibc 2.25, and both the building scripts of glibc and
> > gcc have -fomit-frame-pointer automatical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81587
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
Ok. Had expected unused declarations to be a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
Bug ID: 81593
Summary: Optimize PowerPC vector set from vector extract
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01862.html for a proposed
patch to update the tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 41852
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41852&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
Checked on power7 big endian and power8 little endian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
Bug ID: 81594
Summary: Optimize PowerPC vector set and store
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 41854
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41854&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79252
--- Comment #2 from Zoltan Hidvegi ---
Created attachment 41855
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41855&action=edit
Possible vec_insert implementation
The attached code shows two implementation for inserting a byte to a variab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81587
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81595
Bug ID: 81595
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error:
multiple hot/cold transitions found)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
