https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90663
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90664
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90628
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 29 07:48:37 2019
New Revision: 271732
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271732&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/90628
* c-common.c (check_builtin_function_arguments)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90648
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least __builtin_*_overflow{,_p} verify the arguments and don't let bogus
ones through.
As for internal functions, those indeed can't be verified, but they are
compiler constructed and the compiler should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 29 09:33:02 2019
New Revision: 271736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/90543
* optc-save-gen.awk: In cl_optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 29 09:35:34 2019
New Revision: 271737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/90543
* optc-save-gen.awk: In cl_optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
--- Comment #8 from myLC at gmx dot net ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> It could also be Bug 90557 (which is fixed in the gcc-9-branch but present
> in the gcc 9.1.0 release) but the symptoms don't look similar.
This is possib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, wrong-code
--- Comment #44 from T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90317
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90666
Bug ID: 90666
Summary: Warn if an UB was met during constexpr evaluation
attempt
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46390|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above patch:
1) adds sorry_at for virtual consteval, that is quite a lot of work
2) still doesn't handle ctors properly (perhaps sorry_at too)?
3) fixes the testcase from the paper with decltype containin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90664
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63261
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giulio.benetti@micronovasrl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 29 14:08:57 2019
New Revision: 271738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/90329
* lang.opt (fbroken-callers): Remove.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90667
Bug ID: 90667
Summary: pipe eof
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90667
Simon Klüpfel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 29 14:45:35 2019
New Revision: 271740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85494 use rdseed and rand_s in std::random_device
Add suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mingw |*-*-mingw*
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90668
Bug ID: 90668
Summary: loop invariant moving a dependent store out of a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 29 15:55:12 2019
New Revision: 271743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/90329
* lto-streamer.h (LTO_minor_version): Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90668
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
If the size of int and void* are the same, I would say there is an issue.
Otherwise there is undefined behavior going on.
The reason for the difference in sizes matter is because you write via void*
and then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90668
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> If the size of int and void* are the same, I would say there is an issue.
> Otherwise there is undefined behavior going on.
>
> The reason for the difference in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #43 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 29 16:02:56 2019
New Revision: 271744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/90329
* lto-streamer.h (LTO_minor_version): Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Workaround added for 8.4+, 9.2+ and 10.1+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90669
Bug ID: 90669
Summary: go/gofrontend/types.cc:2805 contains range-based ‘for’
loops which are not C++98
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trashyankes at wp dot pl
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90669
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed May 29 17:30:36 2019
New Revision: 271746
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271746&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-05-29 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/89875
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] |[7/8/9 Regression] invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90670
Bug ID: 90670
Summary: const& template parameter in a header trips
-Wsubobject-linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90662
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
It doesn't help that the ADDR_EXPR is rendered as &*a.1_9[2] when it should be
&(*a.1_9)[2] because a.1_9 is a pointer to a char[n] array. With the
parenthesization the problem becomes more apparent (to me, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #45 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 29 20:30:45 2019
New Revision: 271751
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271751&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90539
* gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66037
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70076
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> The G++ 4.9 Changes document (https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html)
> claims support for C++ VLAs including initializers (as specified in N3639).
I thought t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70186
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79648
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
I'm wondering which FE's maintainers it'd make more sense to cc, the C FE's or
the C++ FE's?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70076
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53716
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Intentional or bug? |Inconsistencies in error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70076
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> > > The G++ 4.9 Changes document (https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57170
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> It should be an error, not a warning. For other narrowing conversions
> involving constants we do actually use -Wnarrowing (but still defaulting to
> an error)
gcc version 10.0.0 20190529 (experimental) [trunk revision 271737] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -Os small.c
$
$ gcctk -Os -g small.c
during GIMPLE pass: vrp
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:3:5: internal compiler error: in gsi_split_seq_after, at
gimple-iterator.c:345
3 | int main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90672
Bug ID: 90672
Summary: FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-pr86536.c line 21: is
1:should be 2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90598
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 29 21:33:18 2019
New Revision: 271752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90598
* tree.c (lvalue_kind): Return clk_none for e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70076
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The current behavior in this case is undefined. That should be avoided when it
can be done without excessive overhead. Throwing an exception instead has only
negligible overhead and is preferable to letting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 29 22:00:53 2019
New Revision: 271755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/1 fix filesystem::symlink_status for Windows
The fix fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 29 22:00:57 2019
New Revision: 271756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85494 fix failing test
This test now fails on mingw-w64 be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90673
Bug ID: 90673
Summary: A problem with 'copy destination size is too small'
warning in copy_from_user
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90673
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide the preprocessed source and the exact options being used?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90673
Yaro Slav changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|A problem with 'copy|A problem with 'copy
|dest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90674
Bug ID: 90674
Summary: [7.1 Regression] ICE in gen_subprogram_die
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90674
--- Comment #1 from Sergey Barannikov ---
Can be further simplified to just
template
struct C {
C() {}
};
template<>
C::C() = default;
with the same result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #46 from Thomas Koenig ---
Let's see if the failures go away (they should) and also what the
performance impact is now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90675
Bug ID: 90675
Summary: [concepts] expressions in compound requirements not
correctly treated as unevaluated operands
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90676
Bug ID: 90676
Summary: ambiguous GIMPLE after store merging
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90669
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu May 30 00:57:11 2019
New Revision: 271761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/90669
compiler: remove range-based 'for' loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90669
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70076
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Tobias Schlüter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90676
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ambiguous GIMPLE after |[9 Regression] ambiguous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
clang has a -Wformat-pedantic:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wformat-pedantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
krux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hoganmeier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
krux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hoganmeier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
--- Comment #7 from krux ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
is an example of missed -Wpadded suppression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90672
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
I can't reproduce that on x86_64, sorry I don't have access to your target.
72 matches
Mail list logo
