https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91314
Bug ID: 91314
Summary: Confusing warning refers to nonexistent comma operator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
Bug ID: 91315
Summary: missing strlen lower bound of a string known to be at
least N characters
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 31 19:56:04 2019
New Revision: 273946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273946&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/51333 Define recursive_init_error constructor non-inline
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91308
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 31 19:56:08 2019
New Revision: 273947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/91308 fix constraints on unique_ptr assignment
Backport fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] cxxabi.h |[7/8 Regression] cxxabi.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312
--- Comment #3 from Kostas Sotiropoulos ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> THis is not a bug, In C, "i += MACRO;" is equivant to:
> i = i + MACRO.
> And since you are using a type smaller than int, it is prompted to int.
>
> NOTE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91313
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=91313
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:04:17PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This change appears to break FreeBSD as well. See
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-07/msg03699.html
>
Yep, Verified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316
Bug ID: 91316
Summary: Derived type finalization failing
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91189
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
How did you conclude it's a target issue? Would you pinpoint where in the avr
backend the problem is?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91317
Bug ID: 91317
Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] false-positive
maybe-uninitialized warning in destructor with
placement new
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46654&action=edit
untested patch
It looks like update_scratch_ops creates a copy of the original scratch
register, but the new s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91294
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91183
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch to handle the issue discussed in comment #6:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg0.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42546
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #20 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from wschmid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #21 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > > > Honza pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91317
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Did you consider exceptions? a() could throw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #22 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to Xiong Hu XS Luo from comment #21)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > > > (In rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91135
--- Comment #11 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Aug 1 05:57:12 2019
New Revision: 273962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] PR91135, __linux__ not defined with -mcall-aixdesc on 9.x and ppc6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91135
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91317
Martin Dorey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91157
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 1 06:28:19 2019
New Revision: 273963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-07-17 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91150
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 1 06:29:22 2019
New Revision: 273964
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273964&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-07-30 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91216
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 1 06:30:26 2019
New Revision: 273965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-07-30 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 1 06:31:54 2019
New Revision: 273967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-07-31 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91301
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 1 06:31:20 2019
New Revision: 273966
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273966&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2019-07-31 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91216
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
--- Comment #15 from Joel Yliluoma ---
Seems to work neatly now.
Any reason why on vector size 128, non-AVX, it does the low byte move through
the red zone? Are pextrb or movd instructions not available? Or does ABI
specify that the upper bits of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91201
--- Comment #16 from Joel Yliluoma ---
In reference to my previous comment, this is the code I tested with and the
compiler flags were -Ofast -mno-avx.
unsigned char bytes[128];
unsigned char sum (void)
{
unsign
101 - 133 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
