https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90421
Bug ID: 90421
Summary: Invalid memory write in allocate on assignment to a
class(*) variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #24 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Created attachment 46335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46335&action=edit
Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and .gcno files
Hi Martin
here is coverage test data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 10 May 2019, JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
>
> JunMa changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 07:39:46 2019
New Revision: 271055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271055&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR pch/90326
cp/
* config-lang.in (gtfiles): Remove c-fami
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
--- Comment #3 from Andreas K. Huettel ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #2)
> I talked to Palmer. Apparently what you want to do is build multilibs for
> lp64 and lp64d, to test the linux multilib support. That isn't currently
> support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90422
Bug ID: 90422
Summary: DW_AT_main_subprogram not added to CU DIE
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387
--- Comment #4 from JunMa ---
LGTM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #0)
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking into how we can implement MTE in the compiler.
What is MTE?
...
> 3) Would there be any obvious difficulties with a transformation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #36)
> Different Ian, but I'm not sure which one -- ILT
I'm sure it was you - r148512. Of course the intent of that rev. was to
speed things up. I didn't check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 07:53:23 2019
New Revision: 271056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90271
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 07:53:23 2019
New Revision: 271056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90352
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 10 07:59:42 2019
New Revision: 271057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90355
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 10 07:59:42 2019
New Revision: 271057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90420
--- Comment #8 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > Line #5 is marked as not executed. I understand that this function might be
> > optimized as an inline function. However, since Line #7 and Line #8 is
> > marked a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90093
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri May 10 07:59:42 2019
New Revision: 271057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/90093
* trans-decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90385
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 08:20:38 2019
New Revision: 271059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90385
* tree-parloops.c (try_create_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so the hashtable looks good. But
135 pre "insert iterations == 1084" 1
is indeed excessive. Expecially combined with
135 pre "Insertions" 3
I wonder if you can share the full -fdump-tree-pre-detai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 08:19:44 2019
New Revision: 271058
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271058&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90383
* tree-inline.h (struct copy_body_data): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Most likely similar problem to the one analyzed in PR59813, after all, it is
> the same function. Previously, in that function there were no tail calls
> and most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> Created attachment 46335 [details]
> Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and .gcno files
>
> Hi Martin
>
> here is coverage test data for one of the For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46336&action=edit
Patch 2/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > Most likely similar problem to the one analyzed in PR59813, after all, it is
> > the same function. Previously, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> OK, so the hashtable looks good. But
>
> 135 pre "insert iterations == 1084" 1
>
> is indeed excessive. Expecially combined with
>
> 135 pre "Insertions"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #27 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #25)
> (In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> > Created attachment 46335 [details]
> > Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and .gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #0)
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm looking into how we can implement MTE in the compiler.
>
> What is MTE?
It's an arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Though, I don't understand why that
> if (DEFAULT_ABI == ABI_DARWIN &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #27)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> > > Created attachment 46335 [details]
> > > T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The issue is basically that the C++ Standard Library defines two categories
> for error numbers known to the implementation: "generic" and "system", where
> th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90423
Bug ID: 90423
Summary: Breakage with C++ and "-mlong-double-128"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > The issue is basically that the C++ Standard Library defines two categories
> > for error numbers known to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46337&action=edit
untested patch
So this is another patch adjusting PRE insertion to only iterate when necessary
(well, I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> 6.22% 80774 wrf_r_peak.pgo
> __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_nislfv_rain_plm
> 5.50% 71494 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_wsm52d
>
> vs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90424
Bug ID: 90424
Summary: memcpy into vector builtin not optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90425
Bug ID: 90425
Summary: [GCOV] wrong coverage for complicated function call in
if expression when the abort() statement is in the
body of if statement
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46338&action=edit
Debugging patch
So the issue started before the revision, output of the debugging patch is
following:
$ ./xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90425
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
>
> > Though, I don't und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90425
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, we already have a duplicate for it. It's about trailing '||'
> operator.
> Following is fine:
>
> -:4:int
> 1:5:main ()
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #38 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Ah, sorry, misunderstood.
Yes, that work was all for the goal of implementing -Wjump-misses-init, which
is a small aspect of -Wc++-compat. That was part of the work of getting GCC to
use the common subs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 10 May 2019, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
>
> --- Comment #38 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Ah, sorry, misunderstood.
>
> Yes, that wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-apple-darwin9 |powerpc-apple-darwin9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46339
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46339&action=edit
untested patch
This is another patch. It changes the iteration scheme to RPO order instead of
DOM order to n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46340&action=edit
Patch under test
This is a combination of Jakub's patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00484.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765
--- Comment #13 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Fri May 10 14:00:17 2019
New Revision: 271064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-05-10 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
Bug ID: 90426
Summary: [P0732] Error constructing non-type template parameter
from a prvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #29 from Than McIntosh ---
Tested patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46337 and that
brings compile time now down to about 700 seconds. -ftime-report shows that
tree-PRE is still the major culprit.
Also tested se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 10 14:53:30 2019
New Revision: 271065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78010 - bogus -Wsuggest-override warning on final funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 10 14:57:22 2019
New Revision: 271066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78010 - bogus -Wsuggest-override warning on final funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
Bug ID: 90427
Summary: missing "sign flipping" optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90400
--- Comment #2 from Remi ---
I found 69543 which looks similar but is different (and fixed): the cause of
the bug is different and it applies to the first level of a macro, while this
bug requires 2 levels of macro to show up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I would suspect there are rounding mode issues with it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90427
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78010
--- Comment #13 from Barry Revzin ---
Thanks Marek!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 46341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46341&action=edit
updated patch
I'm testing this - the posted one didn't build on Darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56457
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drepper at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
GCC worked out of the box before we started upstreaming the toolchain. And it
will work out of the box again when we are done with the upstreaming. But
meanwhile, we are still in the middle of upstreaming and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90428
Bug ID: 90428
Summary: -Wredundant-move could warn for more cases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90429
Bug ID: 90429
Summary: lto-wrapper.exe: fatal error: C:\Program
Files\WindowsApps\ArduinoLLC.ArduinoIDE_1.8.21.0_x86__
mdqgnx93n4wtt\hardware\tools\avr/bin/avr-gcc returned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90429
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandreas at satx dot rr.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61968
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri May 10 20:14:22 2019
New Revision: 271076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/61968
* interface.c (com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90353
Dávid Bolvanský changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90157
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90152
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90152
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Just so I'm clear: what exactly needs to be enclosed in _(...) in
> print_z_candidate?
The code:
print_z_candidate (loc, "candidate:", candidates);
should be:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87716
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 21:41:16 2019
New Revision: 271078
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271078&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90388 fix std::hash> bugs
A disabled specialization should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 21:41:23 2019
New Revision: 271080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81266 fix std::thread::native_handle_type test
The test use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 21:41:19 2019
New Revision: 271079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271079&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90397 fix std::variant friend declarations
Clang diagnoses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk. The noexcept part might be worth backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90239
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 22:23:01 2019
New Revision: 271081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90239 use uses_allocator_construction_args in
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90397
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 10 22:23:10 2019
New Revision: 271083
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271083&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90397 fix std::variant friend declaration
Clang diagnoses i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90239
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
Bug ID: 90430
Summary: [9 Regression] internal procedure target rejected in
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90431
Bug ID: 90431
Summary: support __builtin_cpu_supports() in Linux kernel code
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90432
Bug ID: 90432
Summary: Internal compiler error with no_unique_address empty
type with constructor call followed by value
initialized to non-zero
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90157
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
My checker found a few of these in an x86_64 build too:
gcc/c-family/c-format.c:394:50: warning: ‘args’ is not a word; use ‘arguments’
instead [-Wformat-diag]
gcc/c-family/c-format.c:5148:11: warning: ‘args’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80195
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90430
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
--- Comment #2 from m101010a at gmail dot com ---
When I said to put spaces ELs at the end of lines, I meant the end of logical
lines (e.g. \n), not the end of screen lines. Sorry for the confusion.
You can't see this issue in gnome-terminal bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78917
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Another test case:
>
> $ cat f.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -Wextra f.c
> int f (int i)
> {
> const char * p = __builtin_strchr (i ? "123" : "456", '2');
> return __
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
