https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80609
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82512
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #20 from Chris Johns ---
I have been testing the patch attached to RTEMS ticket
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3171 and it has built gcc once for ARM and then
it did not build for SPARC plus SPARC build can fail on different header fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82479
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
I am running the GCC tests under proot + qemu.
proot is similar to chroot but does not require root privileges,
qemu is a well known emulator that enables me to run validations for
arm/aarch64 on x86 hosts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80914
--- Comment #11 from Steven Noonan ---
Weird, I wonder why you can't repro it.
I built with this to get a stack trace (I assume -O and -ggdb work properly
when placed here):
$ go.gcc test -o testbin -gccgoflags '-O0 -ggdb3
-Wl,--compress-debug-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82159
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42340&action=edit
gcc8-pr82159.patch
Untested fix for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81404
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80914
--- Comment #12 from Steven Noonan ---
Oh this is kind of interesting. It runs fine at '-O1 -ggdb3'
$ go.gcc test -o testbin -gccgoflags '-O1 -ggdb3
-Wl,--compress-debug-sections=zlib'
OK: 136 passed
PASS
ok github.com/twstrike/ed448
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81404
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Probably all reserved identifiers should be discuraged for fixit hints.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82435
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82520
Bug ID: 82520
Summary: Missing warning when stack addresses escape the
current scope
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82481
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81404
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Agreed with comment #2 for reserved symbols that have non-reserved counterparts
(such as INT_MAX). (If the set of non-reserved symbols changes depending on
options, e.g., with -std=c11 vs earlier modes, it wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82520
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not to mention that the #c0 code has undefined behavior if rot is not 0, but a
multiple of 8 * sizeof(uint32_t), like 32, 64, ...
If you insisted on the rot == 0 check it would need to be done after the the
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Two further cases:
unsigned
f10 (unsigned x, unsigned char y)
{
y %= __CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_INT__;
return (x << y) | (x >> (-y & ((__CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_INT__) - 1)));
}
unsigned
f11 (unsigned x, unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #33 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 42341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42341&action=edit
Test-case to reproduce regression with cortex-m7
I have attached an artificial test-case th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7356
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7356
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> Candidate patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82013
Oops; wrong link; correct link is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00697.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 11 19:35:48 2017
New Revision: 253656
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253656&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-11 Vladimir Makarov
PR sanitizer/82353
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
Bug ID: 82521
Summary: No -Wtype-limits warning when using templates
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81422
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 11 19:43:54 2017
New Revision: 253657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253657&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/gcc
2017-10-11 Qing Zhao
PR target/81422
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81422
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|ibuclaw at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I wonder why this condition on the warning is symmetrical:
(!FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (t2)
|| (prototype_p (t1)
&& prototype_p (t2)
&& !types_compatible_p (t1, t2
I mean if you have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80194
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 11 20:49:46 2017
New Revision: 253658
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253658&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80194
* g++.dg/cpp1y/pr80194.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78523
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 11 20:50:07 2017
New Revision: 253659
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253659&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78523
* g++.dg/cpp1y/pr78523.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82414
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 11 20:50:27 2017
New Revision: 253660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82414
* g++.dg/lto/pr82414_0.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78558
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 11 20:50:46 2017
New Revision: 253661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/78558
* gcc.dg/vect/pr78558.c: New te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 11 20:51:08 2017
New Revision: 253662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/80421
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr80421.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
Bug ID: 82522
Summary: std::map::insert(value_type &&) not selected
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #6)
Sounds reasonable. I put the following example together to illustrate an
incompatible alias declaration that should be diagnosed but isn't.
char* f (void) __at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It was added by http://wg21.link/lwg2354 and we don't implement that yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #5 from Jack Lloyd ---
Jakub thank you very much for your comments, this was helpful for me in getting
consistent rol/ror generation.
Speaking as a user it's frustrating that Clang and GCC don't just have a
builtin for rotations like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82523
Bug ID: 82523
Summary: test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee: unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
Bug ID: 82524
Summary: expensive-optimizations produces wrong results
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82524
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely this is the bswap optimization gone wrong. There has been fixes to
that pass since September too.
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
