https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93484
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2cc686897cc4d9935d4c8302af67565fa54c0aec
commit r8-10142-g2cc686897cc4d9935d4c8302af67565fa54c0aec
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> There are lots of tests under gcc.target/arm/mve,
About 2,400 C source code files.
> In the past I contributed Neon intrinsics executable tests (see
> gcc.t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
--- Comment #8 from SRINATH PARVATHANENI ---
Hi David,
>>Can the author please indicate where the test cases for this code
>>are in the gcc trunk testsuite. I'll give them some exercise.
Christophe wrote:
> There are lots of tests under gcc.tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94322
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Bug ID: 94330
Summary: No warning if jobserver not available
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
If you look at the original patch, it did try to do this optimization. When I
looked at it some time later, the combiner no longer generated the sequence
because it thought it was slower (due to length, e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94131
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05c13c439903eb78f109bcab62fd9a74f03a3c9b
commit r10-7378-g05c13c439903eb78f109bcab62fd9a74f03a3c9b
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94131
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 48120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48120&action=edit
C code demonstrating problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331
Bug ID: 94331
Summary: Bind(C) corrupts array descriptors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94315
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> There are about 5,800 Fortran source code files, about 16,100 C++
> and about 35,800 C source code files. That's a lot.
>
> I'll start with Fortran, then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Removing invalid code not isn't wrong (as in non-conforming), but it's
decidedly unhelpful in avoiding the undefined behavior that doesn't necessarily
go away just because the invalid statement is gone. It ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94265
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7a252ba2d0a08397d8fc6d6dc7db34f90f76acb
commit r10-7379-gc7a252ba2d0a08397d8fc6d6dc7db34f90f76acb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94254
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #18 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94254
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:713ecb3d417363a4b12c725b335fce10355da206
commit r10-7380-g713ecb3d417363a4b12c725b335fce10355da206
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94265
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94254
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5228b1bc8cb81be494f5b5faa68b6b859ce0227
commit r10-7381-gb5228b1bc8cb81be494f5b5faa68b6b859ce0227
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94319
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> so fixed
That's good news.
I've no idea how the broken code would have been reached.
Would it be worthwhile adding a test case to the test suite
which reaches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94332
Bug ID: 94332
Summary: [concepts] requires-expression that contains a
requires-expression incorrectly evaluates to false
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
> Removing invalid code not isn't wrong (as in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94306
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94292
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e4cd3cd259af2b5e04986a3f528a4f9f762
commit r10-7382-g6e4cd3cd259af2b5e04986a3f528a4f9f762
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94292
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94333
Bug ID: 94333
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault ( when
trying use structure binding in requires(requires{}))
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Peepholes catch fewer cases, and it is very hard to write correct peepholes.
The only reason to use peepholes is when the other passes leave some important
optimisation on the table, and you cannot feasi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
An implementation is free to do whatever it wants when it finds
invalid/undefined code. A quality implementation will also let the user know
about it so it can be fixed. An even better one will let the user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eeb0c7c07133634eb5e98ba0348392684a763c95
commit r10-7383-geeb0c7c07133634eb5e98ba0348392684a763c95
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94321
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48817fbd7616f086ac7bb1dd38b862f78762c9b8
commit r10-7384-g48817fbd7616f086ac7bb1dd38b862f78762c9b8
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
Bug ID: 94334
Summary: new tests gcc.dg/lto/pr94271 fail
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91498
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94257
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Will Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think the ARM maintainers need to make a decision here.
Bernd, you might want to ping that last patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Bug ID: 94335
Summary: False positive -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e97929e20b2f52e6cfc046c1302324d1b24d95e3
commit r10-7389-ge97929e20b2f52e6cfc046c1302324d1b24d95e3
Author: Carl Love
Date: Wed Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
--- Comment #2 from Romain Geissler ---
Thanks for the explanation.
However few observations:
- Is it really expected that the wording of the warning seems to imply gcc
knows for sure that there is an invalid access ? What is the warning meant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60846
mirh at protonmail dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirh at protonmail dot ch
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94336
Bug ID: 94336
Summary: template keyword accepted before destructor names
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94337
Bug ID: 94337
Summary: Incorrect "dereferencing type-punned pointer will
break strict-aliasing rules" warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 48122
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48122&action=edit
ppc64le tested patch
Thanks Richi!
A patch draft attached to ensure on the right track, also
bootstrapped/regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93484
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
101 - 157 of 157 matches
Mail list logo