https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #33)
> Something like init-regs I'd not like. But the above should be
> detectable by store-merging in some way - store-merging can
> merge across "uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Guenther :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b8df3e421b56bb7853a158b889f5e45611fd31f
commit r10-5940-g6b8df3e421b56bb7853a158b889f5e45611fd31f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Bug ID: 93258
Summary: [10 regression] Missed constant folding from
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81095
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-06-15 00:00:00 |2020-1-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #1 from BCartier ---
Hello, I see this bug has been marked as unconfirmed, are there any updates
about this issue ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91955
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's what I'm proposing:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-truncation-1.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-truncation-1.C
index 8f5e7da2c2e..8e2491ca2b3 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93259
Bug ID: 93259
Summary: Unsized temporary array initialization problem
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #3 from Dave Love ---
You wrote:
> Do you read the document that comes with your compiler?
Do you appreciate how that sort of response sounds is likely to drive
people off (not for the first time)?
I read two sets of release notes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #4 from Dave Love ---
Apologies, I was misled by something else; that option does affect the result.
However, this change in behaviour isn't mentioned in release notes, the error
message doesn't point to that option, and documentatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90838, which changed state.
Bug 90838 Summary: Detect table-based ctz implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90838
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90838
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92029
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
By the way this is from the email thread that added that option
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-07/msg00054.html):
The code for deprecated items is still present and can sometimes
be used via the -fallo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47650&action=edit
gcc10-pr93249.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93260
Bug ID: 93260
Summary: Deal with missing CUDA etc. installation in libgomp
'-lcuda' etc. test cases
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93260
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah. Just note that even the testing could be done when libcuda.so can't be
dlopened, and in that case the test that need it should be UNSUPPORTED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
"Proven not to contain any zeros in the first N bytes" where N is the source
offset in strncpy, would suggest the strlen pass might be more suitable for
this transformation than DSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65155
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93249
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> "Proven not to contain any zeros in the first N bytes" where N is the source
> offset in strncpy, would suggest the strlen pass might be more suitable for
> this t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93246
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is here:
/* Also strip a TARGET_EXPR that would force an extra copy. */
if (TREE_CODE (*arg_p) == TARGET_EXPR)
{
tree init = TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL (*arg_p);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93260
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93261
Bug ID: 93261
Summary: fold strstr(a, b) to zero when b is longer than a
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The problem is here:
> /* Also strip a TARGET_EXPR that would force an extra copy. */
> if (TREE_CODE (*arg_p) == TARGET_EXPR)
> {
> tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Bug ID: 93262
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] DSE memstar call trimming
affecting -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE since r24
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #5 from BCartier ---
Thanks for the heads up, nice to know a fix could be possible.
As for the const reference in doStuff, do you mean
void __attribute__((noinline)) doStuff(const struct TestStruct &myStruct)
{
...
}
?
By doing so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91501
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to BCartier from comment #5)
> Thanks for the heads up, nice to know a fix could be possible.
>
> As for the const reference in doStuff, do you mean
>
> void __attribute__((noinline)) doStuff(cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93263
Bug ID: 93263
Summary: -fno-automatic and RECURSIVE
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92765
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #22)
> I've been going through the test cases here. IIUC, the one in comment #10
> is a separate issue and should get its own bug. (Arguably, so is the one in
> comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested trunk fix on top of the PR93249 fix, so won't apply cleanly to older
stuff, will need reindentation:
--- tree-ssa-dse.c.jj2 2020-01-14 12:13:39.900589819 +0100
+++ tree-ssa-dse.c 2020-01-14 13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Bug ID: 93264
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in
cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch_force, at
cfgrtl.c:4522
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, i get an ICE because type is not compatible with its main variant. the two
types are:
constant 384>
unit-size constant 48>
align:64 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
0x7f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #16 from Leon Winter ---
I just checked again with gcc 9.2.1 and the issue disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> Btw, on trunk I see it optimized, maybe some recent CTOR "fixing" fixed it
> again? Can you double-check?
>
> If it's fixed again I suggest to add the testcase (ck should be elided
> in the assembly?)
I c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 47651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47651&action=edit
proposed patch
This is patch I plan to test which fixes the last testcase. It adds warning
about TREE_ADDRESSAB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, other testcases does not reproduce for me. However if they do it seems like
fallout from the change dropping type checking from call statements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93265
Bug ID: 93265
Summary: memcmp comparisons of structs wrapping a primitive
type not as compact/efficient as direct comparisons of
the underlying primitive type under -Os
Prod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88081
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92749
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is intentional, we got less aggressive at inlining inline functions for
-O2 (since we do not need to do all inlining we want for -O3 when we have
independent set of attributes).
Indeed -Winline -Werror is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
Bug ID: 93266
Summary: strlen pass could optimize strncpy with known strlen
(src) == 0 into memset
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93144
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, the problem was debug info getting bigger due to more inlining? I guss in
that case we could close it. That patch is expected to allow more inlines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89358
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
I think backporting would be a good idea :) If you beat me on it even better.
Now I need to set up my trees in git...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92935
pskocik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pskocik at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, because the source files differs, the comdat group differs and the
loosing one has fewer symbols in it. So we end up keeping some symbols from
the other comdat group that happens to have same name. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Martin, did you try to get some testsuite scale version of the last testcase?
Sorry, but no. So please apply the patch and we can close it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
:
error: no match for call to '(const std::ranges::__cust_access::_Begin) (const
std::ranges::iota_view&)'
/home/pililatiesa/gcc-trunk-20200114/include/c++/10.0.0/bits/range_access.h:420:2:
note: candidate: 'constexpr auto
std::ranges::__cust_access::_Begin::operator()(_Tp&&am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Bug ID: 93268
Summary: ICE with gcc-10 when compiling hypre library with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #7)
> Apologies for delay. Kicked off SPEC2k6 builds, and will report results
> tomorrow.
PING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
--- Comment #1 from Kris ---
sorry. I guess I should add this version of gcc is built from the git version
pulled this morning.
gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20200114 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your testcase is invalid:
iota.cc: In function 'int main()':
iota.cc:22:6: error: conflicting declaration 'auto beginTest4'
22 | auto beginTest4 = std::ranges::begin(Test5); // OK
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
--- Comment #2 from Kris ---
It builds with -O2, fails with -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
x-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20200114/configure --prefix=/usr
--build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
--disable-bootstrap --with-abi=m64 --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-ld=yes --enable-libstdcxx-debug
--enable-libstdcxx-time=yes
x-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20200114/configure --prefix=/usr
--build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
--disable-bootstrap --with-abi=m64 --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-ld=yes --enable-libstdcxx-debug
--enable-libstdcxx-time=yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92240
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> @Dmitry: Can you please attach a pre-processed source file (-E option)?
@Martin: FAIL start for me during gcc bootstrap somewhere between r277460 and
r27748
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:18:45AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> CUT
> So using an undocumented extension
The 'X' extension was documented, but I doubt anyone reads
documentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
--- Comment #5 from Pilar Latiesa ---
It compiles with -std=gnu++2a but not with -std=c++2a. Hope this helps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:780e19f87c8a69e425b6f98703e6931f49518a80
commit r10-5942-g780e19f87c8a69e425b6f98703e6931f49518a80
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2a2a06cafff858f3211a53a6ecc215f5b296565
commit r8-9933-ga2a2a06cafff858f3211a53a6ecc215f5b296565
Author: Joseph Myers
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:48:30AM +, fx at gnu dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93253
>
> --- Comment #4 from Dave Love ---
> Apologies, I was misled by something else; that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8982b5535c2762f566fd15e5862acf4702a78690
commit r10-5945-g8982b5535c2762f566fd15e5862acf4702a78690
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92009
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80de0002429c74626198cefa168c3081c9d90566
commit r10-5944-g80de0002429c74626198cefa168c3081c9d90566
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92009
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92594
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93101
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the strlen pass would handle if (__builtin_strlen (a)) return; if we
disabled the early folding, then it should be taught to handle whatever it is
folded to.
Though, I'm not sure it can, there is no code t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
--- Comment #4 from Kris ---
Created attachment 47653
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47653&action=edit
preprocessed source file
gzipped preprocessed source file attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93267
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem happens when the first template argument is an integer with no
larger integer type available. I try to use __int128 but that's not usable with
-std=c++2a.
#include
int main()
{
std::ranges:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |10.0
Summary|[8/9/10 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93266
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The strlen pass sets the range for non-constant strlen results so it can handle
(and make use of) this sort of thing by querying the range of the strlen lhs.
For example, it detects the buffer overflow in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90917
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The solution for pr83431 doesn't handle the case in comment #2 but hopefully a
future improvement (in GCC 11) will.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93258
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93254
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bd65ad89c202aba3929b9a03ef7e84de873380a
commit r10-5947-g6bd65ad89c202aba3929b9a03ef7e84de873380a
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92590
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
This is a consequence of the change Jonathan cites, to treat the inherited
constructor as a user-declared constructor that prevents the implicit
declaration of a default constructor in Derived.
The differenc
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
