https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
Requires DWARF debugging when building the file, e.g., -gdwarf-4, or DWARF
debugging set as default in configuration file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83397
Bug ID: 83397
Summary: void f() { } has zero arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Alex, please have a look at this.
The problem is again the debug stmts (insns in this case) in unexpected spots.
Both the
;; Insn is not within a basic block
(debug_insn 4582 4581 4583 (var_location:DI flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or, if you for some reason really need some debug markers, do you really need
also debug bind stmts in there? E.g. in light of the AIX bootstrap failure,
having just markers before labels shouldn't be that h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83114
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81228
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 83114 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83381
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83379
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81228
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sudi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
cking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nographite-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171212 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r255581 - FAIL
r255576 - FAIL
r24 - OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
Bug ID: 83399
Summary: Power8 ICE During LRA with 2-op rtl pattern for lvx
instruction
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-ibm-aix*|powerpc-ibm-aix*, ia64-*-*
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83397
--- Comment #1 from Isabella ---
int a;
static void __attribute__((noinline)) f1() { a = 7; }
void g1(void) { f1(); }
static void __attribute__((noinline)) f2(void) { a = 7; }
void g2(void) { f2(); }
gets compiled to
f1:
movl $7, a(%rip)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83395
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 12 17:42:19 2017
New Revision: 255584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/83395 fix invocable traits for INVOKE
PR libstdc++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83397
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83393
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
In the original code, r108 as set by insn 14 is dead after insn 16. The
combination 15->20 should have changed that, but apparently didn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Larger testcase with more cases. Some of them, e.g. in f3, are predicted
roughly reasonably, but the > 95% predictions are just wrong in these cases.
int
f1 (long long a, long long b)
{
return a < b ? -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83390
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83395
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83395
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 12 18:07:24 2017
New Revision: 255585
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255585&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/83395 fix invocable traits for INVOKE
PR libstdc++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Which DR has been filed for this and has there been any progress on it?
I understood the previous comments to refer to
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82190
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42856&action=edit
gcc8-pr81914.patch
Untested patch that handles all the cases in the #c7 testcase. Though it will
not handle so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||babokin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83383
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 06:34:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> gfortran 6, 7, and trunk all give
>
> % gfc6 -o z a.f90 && ./z
> len(a) = 1
> len(bb) = 2
> len(ccc) = 3
> len() = 0
> len() = 0
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78450
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57139
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-ibm-aix*, ia64-*-* |powerpc-ibm-aix*, ia64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase for AIX, -O2 -gdwarf-4 (both C and C++):
int fn1 (void);
void fn2 (void *, const char *);
void fn3 (void);
void
fn4 (long long x)
{
fn3 ();
}
void
fn5 (long long x)
{
if (x)
fn3();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Reduced testcase for AIX, -O2 -gdwarf-4 (both C and C++):
Also fails on Solaris/SPARC, though still with -gdwarf-2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59568
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83382
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Babokin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The interaction between sanitizers and middle-end emitted warnings is
> difficult at best. Can you avoid -Werror when sanitizing?
I can, if it's absolutely ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83334
--- Comment #5 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
I looked at the source a bit, and I see what's going on.
__builtin_ms_va_copy and __builtin_sysv_va_copy are treated both the same as
__builtin_va_copy, which is implemented in gcc/bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82748
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
In resolve.c(resolve_assoc_var) one finds this chuck of code
/* Fix up the type-spec for CHARACTER types. */
if (sym->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER && !sym->attr.select_type_temporary)
{
if (!sym->ts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:00:32PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
>
> Intel v15 gives the result you probably expected:
>
> len(a) = 1
> len(bb) = 2
> len(ccc) = 3
> len(a) = 1
> len(a) = 1
> len(bb) = 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78450
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva ---
the problem is that a concatn resulting from decomposing a reg is not unshared
in a debug insn because it's between blocks. reverting the
remove_forwarder_block part of the tree-cfgcleanup.c changes in r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83400
Bug ID: 83400
Summary: g++ -O1 doesn't execute any code in destructors with a
throw statement if it sees another throw
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50740
Mark Warner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||warnerme at ptd dot net
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83401
Bug ID: 83401
Summary: cpuid function for leaf 7 may not be accessed when
sub-leaf (%ecx) is undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83402
Bug ID: 83402
Summary: PPC64 implementation of ./rs6000/emmintrin.h gives out
of range for _mm_slli_epi32
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83332
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Dec 12 20:44:57 2017
New Revision: 255588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-12 Bill Schmidt
PR target/83332
* config/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83332
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00778.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50740
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83403
Bug ID: 83403
Summary: Missed register promotion opportunities in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83403
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83346
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen ---
Fixed by https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00764.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83402
--- Comment #1 from Steven Munroe ---
Similarly doe _mm_slli_epi64 for any const value > 15 and < 32. So:
if (__builtin_constant_p(__B))
{
if (__B < 32)
lshift = (__v2du) vec_splat_s32(__B);
els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think the issue may be in this code:
/* For any other increment, if this is a multiply candidate, we
must introduce a temporary T and initialize it with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Dec 12 22:09:42 2017
New Revision: 255590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255590&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82115 - ICE with variable initialized with its own address.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
In the meantime I found another case when gcc 7 inserts lots of jumps. I am not
sure if your extra test cases covers it too:
#include
int test(int data1[9][9], int data2[9][9])
{
uint64_t b1 = 0, b2 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82190
--- Comment #3 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Tue Dec 12 22:22:53 2017
New Revision: 255592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-12 Aaron Sawdey
PR target/82190
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83397
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
DR#317 explicitly confirms that () is not a prototype in a function
definition.
It's not valid in ISO C to call a variadic function without a prototype in
scope. To the extent that GCC al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83404
Bug ID: 83404
Summary: bogus stringop-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-testresults/2017-q4/msg00460.html
shows GCC build failures on alpha, hppa, ia64, m68k, microblaze, sh,
tilegx, tilepro. (The cases where the GCC build compl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva ---
> the problem is that a concatn resulting from decomposing a reg is not unshared
> in a debug insn because it's between blocks. reverting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83362
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Dec 12 22:46:46 2017
New Revision: 255593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83298
PR tree-optimization/83362
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83383
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Dec 12 22:46:46 2017
New Revision: 255593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83298
PR tree-optimization/83362
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Dec 12 22:46:46 2017
New Revision: 255593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83298
PR tree-optimization/83362
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Here's an untested patch (bootstraps successfully but regtest is still
ongoing):
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83394
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I can reproduce the missing diagnostic but I can't find anything wrong with the
code emitted for the test case. It's the same as in prior versions of GCC.
Can you clarify in what way the emitted object code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #5)
> Here's an untested patch (bootstraps successfully but regtest is still
> ongoing):
>
> Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 81592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81592
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83394
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This PR is solely about the lack of the warning for the case where we were
warning about it (and should be warning about it). It shouldn't be an error,
warning is right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83394
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn ---
AIX is able to bootstrap with the remove_forwarder_block changes reverted.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20171212, trying to build a hppa64 cross compiler using a
x86_64-linux-gnu trunk build.
configure:3475: /home
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83404
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:04:54PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> /* Fix up the type-spec for CHARACTER types. */
> if (sym->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER && !sym->attr.select_type_te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Jakub, good catch on the HWI overflow. I'll make those changes and
re-test. FWIW, the patch as proposed above passes regstrap and will be good
enough for testing whether this indeed is the right appr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Rainier, I wasn't sure how "same" the bootstrap failure you'd observed was,
that's why I'd asked for a preprocessed testcase. Now, since the patch fixed
the problem, nevermind. I'll look into the regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42859
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42859&action=edit
additional patch for the ia64 problem reported by andreas
Andreas, this patch (on top of the other) enables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #19 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42860
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42860&action=edit
additional patch for the sparc pr69102 FAIL
This patch fixes the testsuite regression reported by Rainier on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83397
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42861
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42861&action=edit
gcc8-pr83396-verify.patch
For the label verification I meant something like this (untested except that
without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83404
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
But I dont understand why strncat(x, "aa", 1) does not warn?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
> Bug 83373 - False positive reported by -Wstringop-overflow, is
> another example of warning triggered by a missed optimization
> opportunity, this time in the strlen pass. The optimization
> is discusse
101 - 196 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
