https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82052
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks. The abort is a sanity check to ensure that when we are unwinding the
avail expression hash table that every entry we want to restore to a previous
state is actually in the hash table.
A failure her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82069
Bug ID: 82069
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82060
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
--- Comment #36 from Martin Liška ---
Please provide one more test-case that still fails and I will take a look. Feel
free to reopen it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
So do we want to add this folding to match.pd?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
>
> --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
> So do we want to add this folding to match
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82067
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
i.e. read what the crash said:
(In reply to jupitercuso4 from comment #0)
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preprocessed source if appropriate.
> Please include the complete backtrace with any bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82070
Bug ID: 82070
Summary: [8 Regression] inaccessible within this context in
lambda rejects valid
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82070
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82040
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Sep 1 09:22:57 2017
New Revision: 251581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82040
* typeck.c (cp_build_unary_op): Avoid re-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82040
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82040
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Sep 1 09:24:54 2017
New Revision: 251582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251582&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82040
* typeck.c (cp_build_unary_op): Avoid re-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81128
--- Comment #10 from Billy O'Mahony ---
Hi All,
thanks to Martin, Nathan and Richard for working on and fixing this issue.
Can anyone say if the fix will be back ported to future point releases of the
5.x, 6.x, 7.x versions?
Regards,
Billy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Hi Paolo,
Thanks for working on this.
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
> It would be nice if somebody with a fully functional ARM toolchain could
> check whether something like the below at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The demangled names are not in a canonical/standardized format, or unambiguous,
or portable between different compilers, so that isn't a complete solution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
--- Comment #27 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #26)
> The demangled names are not in a canonical/standardized format, or
> unambiguous, or portable between different compilers, so that isn't a
> complete solution.
Y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82071
Bug ID: 82071
Summary: Error in assign-ops in combination with
FLT_EVAL_METHOD
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82071
--- Comment #1 from Willem Wakker ---
That's the problem when you have too many answers: the right answer should be
0x10001235
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81887
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 1 11:25:39 2017
New Revision: 251585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251585&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81887
c-family/
* c-pragma.c (omp_pragmas): Move "ord
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc64-sun-solaris2.10 |
Host|sparc64-sun-solaris2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Unfortunately, the patch breaks x86 bootstrap (e.g. for the 32-bit
_multc3.o), both in i386-pc-solaris2.* and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu compilers:
$ cc1 -fpreprocessed libgcc2.i -quiet -o lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
> Unfortunately, the patch breaks x86 bootstrap (e.g. for the 32-bit
> _multc3.o), both in i386-pc-solaris2.* and x86_64-pc-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82071
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
That would be nice, but to fix this PR, I think all we need is to re-add the
optimization I removed in PR81814 (but only if the precision match).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82059
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Sep 1 13:02:37 2017
New Revision: 251591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix profile update in tree-ssa-isolate-paths.c (PR tree-optimization/82059
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81128
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Billy O'Mahony from comment #10)
> Hi All,
>
> thanks to Martin, Nathan and Richard for working on and fixing this issue.
>
> Can anyone say if the fix will be back ported to future point relea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
Bug ID: 82072
Summary: sanitizer does not detect on overflow from LLONG_MIN
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81917
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #25 from Dennis Clarke ---
So this seems to be related to some env var BUILD_CONFIG ?
Ehere is this "BUILD_CONFIG" documented?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81128
--- Comment #12 from Billy O'Mahony ---
Thanks, Martin. That's great. Can you update the ticket with the fixed versions
when you get a chance?
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> (In reply to Billy O'Mahony from comment #10)
> > Hi Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82015
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81923
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 1 13:46:14 2017
New Revision: 251595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81923
* asan.c (create_odr_indicator): Strip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81902
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 1 13:47:04 2017
New Revision: 251596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81902
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -fsanitize=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82073
Bug ID: 82073
Summary: internal compiler error: in pop_to_marker, at
tree-ssa-scopedtables.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why do you use LLONG_MIN for long variable?
Better testcase:
int
main ()
{
long long l = -__LONG_LONG_MAX__ - 1;
int i = 0;
i -= l;
i = -l;
return 0;
}
This is the effect of premature optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82074
Bug ID: 82074
Summary: [aarch64] vmlsq_f32 compiled into 2 instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/g/jWvmxS
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This is the effect of premature optimization in convert.c, perhaps for
> -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow we should punt in do_narrow if the
> argument type is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82052
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
What an interesting little bug. A patch is in testing.
The reason it's so hard to trigger is you need a very specific and presumably
unusual set of circumstances to trigger the bug.
Enter object1 into slo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
But that's only a half of the problem here, for
i = -lmin;
we produce
i = (int) -(unsigned int) lmin;
thus again hiding that overflow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82074
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, one thing is the trunc1: case that uses do_narrow (for
MINUS_EXPR/PLUS_EXPR/MULT_EXPR), another thing is that the LSHIFT/RSHIFT_EXPR
narrowing might be problematic for -fsanitize=shift (needs to be veri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
This should fix the two issues above:
--- a/gcc/convert.c
+++ b/gcc/convert.c
@@ -434,6 +434,12 @@ do_narrow (location_t loc,
typex = lang_hooks.types.type_for_size (TYPE_PRECISION (typex),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> This should fix the two issues above:
>
> --- a/gcc/convert.c
> +++ b/gcc/convert.c
> @@ -434,6 +434,12 @@ do_narrow (location_t loc,
> typex = lang_hooks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82052
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Sep 1 15:32:15 2017
New Revision: 251600
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251600&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82052
* tree-ssa-scopedtables.c (avail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82052
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Sep 1 15:58:05 2017
New Revision: 251601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: PR82012: Implement CAN_INLINE_P target hook.
TARGET_CAN_INLINE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82075
Bug ID: 82075
Summary: structured binding fails with empty base class
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> > This should fix the two issues above:
> >
> > --- a/gcc/convert.c
> > +++ b/gcc/convert.c
> > @@ -434,6 +434,12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82074
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://godbolt.org/g/jWvmx |
|S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82067
--- Comment #3 from jupitercuso4 at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 42101
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42101&action=edit
Preprocessed source that triggers the internal error.
Preprocessed source attached. Compile it w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82068
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It works for me.
Can you please post exact compile flags and perhaps failing assembly file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82071
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Sep 1 16:29:49 2017
New Revision: 251603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix excess precision handling of compound assignments (PR c/82071).
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 1 16:49:26 2017
New Revision: 251606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81766
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_init_large_pic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Ehere is this "BUILD_CONFIG" documented?
It's a developer option so it's not documented but in the configure script:
./configure --help
[...]
--with-build-config='NAME NAME2...'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82024
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Sep 1 16:54:53 2017
New Revision: 251607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix for PR82024
With the testcase in the PR, with all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82024
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #27 from Dennis Clarke ---
Okay .. thank you. So that should not be needed for a release version
bootstrap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82076
Bug ID: 82076
Summary: inconsistencies between sanitizer and
-Wstringop-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82077
Bug ID: 82077
Summary: [7.1 Regression]: ICE on associating polymorphic array
dummy with a type-guarded array section
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42065|0 |1
is obsolete|
/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20170901 (experimental) [trunk revision 251580] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c ; ./a.out
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > b = f = e[2][5] = a[5][0];
>
>
> You are writing past the array bounds of e[2] and reading past the array
> bounds of a there.
Actually not reading past the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078
Zhendong Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078
--- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su ---
So, it is indeed a bug and appears to be a recent regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82068
--- Comment #2 from coypu ---
Created attachment 42103
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42103&action=edit
-mieee, asserts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82079
Bug ID: 82079
Summary: missing pointer overflow detection with
-fsanitize=pointer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82068
--- Comment #3 from coypu ---
Created attachment 42104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42104&action=edit
-mieee -mfp-trap-mode=n, doesn't assert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #30 from Dennis Clarke ---
If that is on gcc master I have to backport to 7.2.0 and then
give it a try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82068
--- Comment #4 from coypu ---
sorry, I attached an object file rather than assembly. I am guessing it's good
enough.
I am passing only -mieee to make it fail.
(If I use instead -mieee -mfp-trap-mode=n, it doesn't fail, and I get a very
similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks.
What I quickly hacked can't be completely correct because it breaks
constexpr-7747.C on x86_64-linux. That most likely implies that since we are
using DECL_ARTIFICIAL labels in other cases we need at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
I meant constexpr-77467.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82079
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not a bug, but how it is meant to work and how it works in clang too.
The IL doesn't make any distinction between s + 18446603339198873381UL and
s + -1317290203L or s -1317290203L, therefore we have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to jim.wilson from comment #2)
> I did already look at examples, and read the docs, and step through
> code in the debugger. Posarg and negarg are integers, which are
> ignored for options th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
disable-libssp --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-linker-build-id
--enable-lto --enable-plugin --enable-install-libiberty
--with-linker-hash-style=gnu --enable-gnu-indirect-function --disable-multilib
--disable-werror
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20170901 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82048
--- Comment #2 from Aaro Koskinen ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> This looks like an issue with your libc. Where does __nldbl_fprintf come
> from?
It seems this was introduced by GLIBC 2.25. GCC does not define
__LONG_DOUBLE_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82048
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, aaro.koskinen at iki dot fi wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82048
>
> --- Comment #2 from Aaro Koskinen ---
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82079
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I forgot that pointer offsets are treated internally as signed even if they are
unsigned in the source code. That seems like an important detail for the new
option to document.
Although to be honest, even re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82048
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
Uhm, no, we are not completely safe. Because in general, per 10.1.5, a
constexpr function is *not* supposed to contain goto statements, and our code
reflects that in various implicit/subtle ways. Thus the on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #4 from Domani Hannes ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Note that original function does:
>
> void calcPercent( const char *name,int pos,int size )
> {
> int percent = 100*pos/size;
> if( percent!=m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81848
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Sep 1 22:10:57 2017
New Revision: 251613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-01 Michael Meissner
PR libquadmath/81848
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Applying the proposed fix and compiling the test case with
-fsanitize=undefined I get
testcase.c:8:3: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 0 -
-9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type 'long int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think this is getting closer:
Index: constexpr.c
===
--- constexpr.c (revision 251607)
+++ constexpr.c (working copy)
@@ -3671,7 +3671,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82068
coypu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
