https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88811
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Minor quibble on one of the lines:
+ (pstr1.length() || pstr2.length() ? pstr1.length() + 3 : 0)
Given the number of folks who fail to read correctly the ternary
operator, would this be better as
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88811
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's pretty obvious from the context.
Parenthesizing the second operand is certainly useless. Obviously the colon
binds to the question mark, not the plus operator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88807
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 12 09:15:54 2019
New Revision: 267875
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267875&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/88807
* m4/minloc0.m4: Reindent to avoid -Wm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88807
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88703
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Jan 12 10:27:12 2019
New Revision: 267877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Verify dimension limits after applying defaults
There's a problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Created attachment 45416
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45416&action=edit
Add nodiscard support
As Martin suggested, we could indeed use existing attributes in library code to
warn abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In armv7hl --enable-checking=release profiledbootstrap I see:
checking for strtoull... ../../libdecnumber/decNumber.c: In function 'decLnOp':
../../libdecnumber/decNumber.c:5581:13: error: number of counters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> See PR88473 and PR88798. I'd personally probably revert the changes to make
> the mask operations separate from GPR operations and just use special RTL
> patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> > After r264397 "[nvptx] Remove use of CUDA unified memory in libgomp", I'm
> > seeing (intermittently only, and onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35587
John Levon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||levon at movementarian dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35587
--- Comment #11 from John Levon ---
Ugh, and in fact, the sanitize option isn't even enough for the real-life code
that we hit this with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||isj-bugzilla at i1 dot dk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88816
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> See PR 85577 (and PR 86135).
>
> Use parens instead of braces and it works:
>
> new(&u.array_elements) array_type(a);
Basically, if you're trying to ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ulrich Drepper from comment #3)
> Created attachment 45416 [details]
> Add nodiscard support
>
> As Martin suggested, we could indeed use existing attributes in library code
> to warn about so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68933
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
GCC6 is no longer supported, this PR should probably closed as FIXED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Please take a look at
https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/commit/a56b4a49b2617a31365bdb9c44340695c31d56e8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47149
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So this PR seems to be another instance of non-deterministic error recovery.
Yet another instance of
==2863==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0x61302588
at pc 0x0001004e9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88778
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
We need to update read_complex_part and write_complex_part to manipulate
SCmode with vector operations instead of 64-bit integers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88817
Bug ID: 88817
Summary: Diagnostics improvement: Does not detect attempt to
use void expression in some cases.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88816
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Skytte Jørgensen ---
Ohhh...! Thank you for the explanation.
That was not at all obvious to me. It would be great if GCC detected it and
warned "brace-initializing a std:vector with a single std::vector may not do
what y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
H.J., can you please look into this?
Plus, I guess we need to reevaluate all the spots where
-Wno-address-of-packed-member has been added, whether we were warning there
correctly or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88813
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
To be safe, even though %s requires that the argument be a nul-terminated
string, the snprintf optimization would need to be predicated on knowing that
it, in fact, is one (to avoid buffer overflow if snprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I can see how applying the attribute to every standard library function, even
const, might be excessive, but I wonder if it would make sense for the majority
of them, or at least for most equality and relation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> If it did we could have GCC apply it implicitly to
> all such functions or operators defined in namespace std, and provide a new
> attribute to disable it in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
So far this patch seems to test OK.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c b/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
index 4a7ccb3ddd5..d9af255a034 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/list_read.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85486
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Jan 12 22:18:50 2019
New Revision: 267894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Force vl32 if calling vector-partitionable routines -- test-cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85381
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Jan 12 22:18:39 2019
New Revision: 267893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Don't emit barriers for empty loops -- test-cases
Add test-cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88776
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 12 23:06:47 2019
New Revision: 267898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267898&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-12 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/88776
* io/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88817
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88737
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Wouldn't that break e.g. programs that
> free (a);
> return (uintptr_t) a % 16;
> or similar (i.e. inspect the bits of the pointer rather than what it points
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88736
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88704
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88818
Bug ID: 88818
Summary: Segfault with vtable-verify LTO optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88818
John Agapeyev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jagapeyev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88818
--- Comment #2 from John Agapeyev ---
Ignore first comment, output was from older test file.
GCC -v output:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /build/gcc/src/gcc/configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I'd use just
> struct S { short s; void *p; } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>
> int *
> foo (struct S *x)
> {
> return (int *) (x->p);
> }
> for both languages.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Jan 13 04:02:46 2019
New Revision: 267902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-12 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/61765
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32630
Bug 32630 depends on bug 61765, which changed state.
Bug 61765 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] [F03] Rejects valid BIND(C) ENTRY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #59 from H.J. Lu ---
A missing warning:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 pr51628-7]$ cat pr51628-33.c
struct pair_t
{
char x;
int i[4];
} __attribute__ ((packed, aligned (4)));
extern struct pair_t p;
extern void bar (int *);
void
foo (struct pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
Zhihao Yuan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lichray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88704
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Confirmed, although I'd be more inclined to invest energy into including
> -Wstrict-prototypes in -Wall or -Wextra than into diagnosing the VLA in
> K&R-style de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88731
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
56 matches
Mail list logo
