https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 9 17:16:24 2018
New Revision: 264986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86659
* gimple-match.h (gimple_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Oct 9 17:17:41 2018
New Revision: 264987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264987&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Use TImode for BLKmode values in 2 integer registers
When pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Oct 9 17:23:06 2018
New Revision: 264989
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264989&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Use TImode for BLKmode values in 2 integer registers
When pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 9 18:03:31 2018
New Revision: 264990
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264990&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-09 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/83522
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Another thing is the too complicated alias check where for
>
> (gdb) p debug_data_reference (dr_a.dr)
> #(Data Ref:
> # bb: 14
> # stmt: _28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Why does it think we're calling it with max_size()?
_M_check_len contains a path (hopefully not taken, but gcc doesn't see that)
where it returns max_size(), a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87569
Bug ID: 87569
Summary: defining type in ‘sizeof’ expression is invalid in C++
references wrong operator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87567
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
--- Comment #6 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Tue Oct 9 20:55:25 2018
New Revision: 264994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264994&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-10-09 Will Schmidt
Backport from trunk.
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84423
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 9 21:16:09 2018
New Revision: 264996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-10-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84423
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87570
Bug ID: 87570
Summary: Rejects valid alias template usage (as a type pack
size requirement)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks Martin and Marc for the explanations. The warning sounds a lot more
definite than "there is some possible execution where the value is too large".
The phrasing of the warning makes it look like that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86747
François-R Boyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Francois-R.Boyer at PolyMtl
dot ca
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87571
Bug ID: 87571
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in friend_accessible_p, accessing
protected member of template friend inside template
class
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79707
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80351
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning code considers just the argument to the call. It doesn't know (and
in the constant case can't tell) where the argument came from. It would need
to be reworked to tell the difference (e.g., along
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69971
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Yes, the warning does exist to warn about unsafe calls to the function (I
> added it here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01702.html).
> This bug w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72751
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #16)
> The warning code considers just the argument to the call. It doesn't know
> (and in the constant case can't tell) where the argument came from. It
> would need t
101 - 124 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
