https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
--- Comment #1 from jsiebert at poczta dot wp.pl ---
file test.c:
#include "testarg.h"
int main(void)
{
testarg();
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
Bug ID: 81777
Summary: Compiler doesn't detect wrong function declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also -Wmissing-declarations helps here to make sure you have a declaration
before an external definition. It will warn as you don't have a declaration for
testarg function in testarg.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #3 from Volker Wehrs ---
Why is sync() (alias fflush()) called in sys_open(FILE*,...) at all?
1. It is not called in sys_open(int,...)
2. Both sys_open() functions are called in the constructor of stdio_filebuf
_only_.
So, as __basi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
I also cannot reproduce it anymore w/ gcc-8.0.0-alpha20170806 snapshot. It must
be fixed or made latent some time in between.
% powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-8.0.0-alpha20170806 -Q --help=target | grep -e
ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 41955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41955&action=edit
patch that introduces mstack-protector-guard-symbol=
This patch can be used to override TLS offset with a symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81417
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 9 08:51:20 2017
New Revision: 250984
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250984&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81417
* c-array-notation.c (fix_builtin_array_nota
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81417
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #8)
> How about simply letting the user enter an assembly expression of neither of
> the standard ABI options are suitable? Also, shouldn't the user space
> default on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
Bug ID: 81778
Summary: libgomp.c/for-5.c failure on nvptx -- illegal memory
access
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 41956
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41956&action=edit
GOMP_DEBUG=1 log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
nvidia card: Quadro M1200
cuda: 7.5
cuda driver: 375.66
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #2)
> I also cannot reproduce it anymore w/ gcc-8.0.0-alpha20170806 snapshot. It
> must be fixed or made latent some time in between.
>
> % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> For next PRs,
> please output content of gcc -v so that we can identify a single commit.
Sure, but how can this possibly help to identify a commit? I dont' have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81779
Bug ID: 81779
Summary: bool define from stdbool.h suppresses
-Wdeclaration-after-statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > For next PRs,
> > please output content of gcc -v so that we can identify a single commit.
>
> Sure, but how can t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Yes, but I was thinking that you are using a nighly builds from trunk?
I use weekly snapshots. Sorry for not mentioning it earlier.
> Even my distribution relea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to sgunderson from comment #7)
> What I'd like is some sort of indication about where test.h came in from
> (test1.cc and test2.cc).
Actually, what would be more useful is to detect that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81417
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
The core loop looks like this:
...
$L4:
add.u32 %r31,%r42,-1;
cvt.u64.u32 %r63,%r31;
shl.b64 %r64,%r63,2;
add.u64 %r65,%r75,%r64;
ld.u32 %r71,[%r65];
add.u32 %r70,%r71,-4;
st.u32 [%r65],%r70;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81389
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668
--- Comment #9 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
> Actually, what would be more useful is to detect that the difference in type
> comes from S and point out where S has been declared as differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81780
Bug ID: 81780
Summary: -finstrument-control-flow -mcet is incompatible with
__attribute__ ((regparm (3)))
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81781
Bug ID: 81781
Summary: consexpr pointer comparsion error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81780
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer ---
Could we turn calls to regparam (3) functions into noplt calls? Some
additional mechanics are probably needed if the address of such a function is
taken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80503
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81750
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d25fe0be at outlook dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 9 11:28:22 2017
New Revision: 250985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250985&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81233
* c-typeck.c (pedwarn_init): Make the functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81233
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81781
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79953
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But there is an open FILE and it might have pending writes or ungetc'd data
that should be flushed. I think that's why it's there. Consider:
FILE* f = std::fopen("81751.txt", "w+");
std::fwrite("Some w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79810
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
Bug ID: 81782
Summary: Yet another -Wmaybe-uninitialized false positive with
empty array
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
Summary|Yet another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
--- Comment #2 from Sergio Prado ---
Created attachment 41957
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41957&action=edit
Pre-processed file from rtcm2_json.c compiled with -E option
Here is the pre-processed file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11196
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326 and
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21327 for the changes to glibc
that are needed before we can change anything in GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2082
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81783
Bug ID: 81783
Summary: -Wtautological-compare could do better
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80214
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79890
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 80214 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41958
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41958&action=edit
Minimal test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79987
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227
--- Comment #5 from Matt Godbolt ---
Seems to have been fixed in 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80019
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 79810 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79810
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53404
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> > I don't see this any longer.
>
> I think I might've seen this before, but I'll have to double-check the nex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77953
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2082
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpcspe-*-linux-gnu* |powerpcspe-*-linux-gnu*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #5 from Volker Wehrs ---
I'm sorry but I ignored the first if-clause in sys_open(). That if-clause makes
sure there is no open file referenced by the __basic_file, otherwise sys_open()
fails.
Then the sync() is called before the new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
A (potentially simpler) alternative is to use sequential builds (make without
-j) and bisect by index of compiled source file, i.e. have a wrapper script
around gcc that uses some global counter to pass -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #10 from Mike Lothian ---
Unfortunately it also depends on LLVM not just Mesa which makes it a much
bigger target for figuring this out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79565
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
(In r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #12 from DIL ---
Could you please tell me if there is a way I can check whether the dissociated
unlimited polymorphic pointer (class(*), pointer), which is set to NULL, is
indeed set to a clean state internally? That is, could you ple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01866.html
Did this patch ever get into trunk gcc ?
I have some evidence that gcc trunk revision 250947
do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80503
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is this a dup of PR80618? That is fixed on all branches already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81784
Bug ID: 81784
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/compare2.c fails starting with
r250984
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81767
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79565
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41959
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41959&action=edit
A patch
I got
[hjl@gnu-6 pr79565]$ cat x.i
typedef float a __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
a b, d;
int __att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81767
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or just call fflush(__file) directly:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00673.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
No, it doesn't. It only made it possible to call the builtin from the
frontend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #11 from Mike Lothian ---
So a lot of the segfaults I see are in si_shader so I thought I'd compile Mesa
with and without BMI and compare the onjdumps of the two .o files
CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe -mno-bmi -m32" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #12 from Mike Lothian ---
Created attachment 41960
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41960&action=edit
si_shader objdumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80503
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80618
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 80503 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Aug 9 17:52:10 2017
New Revision: 250993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250993&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81751 don't call fflush(NULL)
PR libstdc++/79820
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Aug 9 17:52:10 2017
New Revision: 250993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250993&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81751 don't call fflush(NULL)
PR libstdc++/79820
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67694
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 9 18:32:02 2017
New Revision: 250994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250994&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81359 - Unparsed NSDMI error from SFINAE context.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81785
Bug ID: 81785
Summary: Segmentation fault for signed overflow in index
expression when -fwrapv is enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68033
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Mike Lothian from comment #12)
> Created attachment 41960 [details]
> si_shader objdumps
We need a small testcase in C.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68834
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67638
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67586
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
