https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #36 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Created attachment 49686
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49686&action=edit
Patch by Senthil Kumar Selvaraj, non-cc0-avr-backend
this should(!) be the final patch, derived
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac2347289d4d8000a078b540b6c9c2c74bb33471
commit r10-9121-gac2347289d4d8000a078b540b6c9c2c74bb33471
Author: Hans-Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #14 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The gcc patch also fixes original liferea+webkit-gtk-2.28.4 crash. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96675
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Giorgio Audrito from comment #5)
> I add that a very similar problem happens with -Wtype-limits, I found this
> minimal example:
>
> template
> struct foo {
> bool bar(unsigned y) {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91191
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
and when the precision is different what? assume 0's for the missing bits?
If we allow and want that behaviour, we should change the documentation to
reflect that...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49687&action=edit
Untested patch (proof of concept)
Here's a possible patch that retries after short reads.
Not regte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98149
Bug ID: 98149
Summary: missing spelling hint for misspelled calls to member
functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from anlau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95342
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:316a185ee29c9e6ec060762e76d25b64c60fd665
commit r10-9122-g316a185ee29c9e6ec060762e76d25b64c60fd665
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> The patch seems to regtest ok, but certainly needs some wider testing.
Actually, I think the bug is in io/unix.c:raw_read. That should take
care of repeating the reads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98145
--- Comment #2 from Brecht Sanders
---
Did a bit more digging...
Seems COMPILER_PATH uses ';' as separator on Windows, not ':'.
So besides the .exe issue parse_env_var() also needs to separate the list by a
different separator.
Something like t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95342
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34e72e050bf4e23689af7061f6381b95339eb7fa
commit r9-9099-g34e72e050bf4e23689af7061f6381b95339eb7fa
Author: Harald Anlauf
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95342
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98129
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> Seems like that, if nbyte <= MAX_CHUNK, we do not take account of the
> possibility of a short read.
Yes, that seems to be the better/right place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93083
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a95753214b55d21e5b44eeb098cccf88d44c94dd
commit r11-5752-ga95753214b55d21e5b44eeb098cccf88d44c94dd
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98150
Bug ID: 98150
Summary: Segfault from statement expression in lambda noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98122
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43e84ce7d62be121445e17cc0ee009a81fb285d7
commit r11-5755-g43e84ce7d62be121445e17cc0ee009a81fb285d7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96226
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:625e002396f7d0108f845bfba6a6f4f4fcadad05
commit r11-5756-g625e002396f7d0108f845bfba6a6f4f4fcadad05
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[10 Regression] Accessing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98150
--- Comment #1 from Nick Krempel ---
The following slightly simpler code also repros the issue:
int main() {
[]()noexcept(({constexpr int&&x=1;}));
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98150
--- Comment #2 from Nick Krempel ---
Realised it doesn't need C++20 and was able to repro back in gcc 6.1 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98151
Bug ID: 98151
Summary: integer output gives different results with -O2 and
-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|Linux |
|5.8.15-301.fc33.x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98101
scott snyder changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@li-snyder.org
--- Comment #3 from sc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98151
--- Comment #2 from Brad Bell ---
That fixed my test result.
Sorry I missed that.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91191
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
If you're V_C_E-ing to a narrower type, you just ignore the bits outside the
target type, it's a lot like a narrowing subreg in the RTL world.
I don't know what the semantics are for the widening case. IST
101 - 126 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
