https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
..or maybe I'm just too dumb to invoke g++ -E properly, and the rest of the
options confuse the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #7)
> Thanks Martin, I can confirm that also the bootstrap is back okay.
You're welcome.
Can you please point me to Emacs JIt usage? I'm curious what for is libgccjit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Created attachment 49943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49943&action=edit
Output of gcc -E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
--- Comment #14 from Przemyslaw Wirkus ---
Hi Vladimir,
I'm assigned to the issue and I'm working on it. I think I got the root cause.
I'm in the process of creating a patch after I complete few tests.
kind regards
Przemyslaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 49944
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49944&action=edit
Reduced testcase
This testcase fails on bcb3065b2ba with
cc1plus t.cpp -march=z13 -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The problem occurs starting with:
commit 1e1e1edf88a7c40ae4ae0de9e6077179e13ccf6d
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Thu Oct 29 08:48:15 2020 +0100
More BB vectorization tweaks
This tweaks the op bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #5 from Karine EM ---
This is an automatically reduced program. If GCC will give the Wuninitialized
warning I can reduce the original program again, taking it into account.
I attached the long program in case you find it helpful. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #6 from Karine EM ---
Created attachment 49945
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49945&action=edit
Original large code that caused Seg-fault in GCC-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Confirmed. While we support -fcf-protection=branch and
> -fcf-protection=return,
> -fcf-protection=branch,return gives an error:
>
> xgcc: error: unknown Control-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Still can't reproduce it.
Please send me also output of --verbose.
"marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
>
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #7)
>> Thanks Martin, I can confirm that also the bootstrap is back okay.
>
> You're welcome.
> Can you please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
--- Comment #9 from Andrea Corallo ---
"marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
>
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #7)
>> Thanks Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Created attachment 49946
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49946&action=edit
Output of --verbose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Still can't reproduce it.
> Please send me also output of --verbose.
Yeah, I fed that output to g++, and then it compiles just fine. But when it's
in the actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Also, you can just try the actual build, if you follow
https://wiki.qt.io/Building_Qt_6_from_Git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #8)
> Also, you can just try the actual build, if you follow
> https://wiki.qt.io/Building_Qt_6_from_Git
I tried, but it fails quite fast with:
/home/marxin/bin/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 49947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49947&action=edit
Reduced test-case
I reduced a test-case where GCC 10 does not inline all in fn called
'should_inline'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98221
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecab0d9106a317073f5891f161f031078d835b2f
commit r10-9253-gecab0d9106a317073f5891f161f031078d835b2f
Author: Andreas Krebbel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89701
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> > Confirmed. While we support -fcf-protection=branch and
> > -fcf-protection=return,
> > -fcf-protection=branch,return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] AArch64 |[8/9 Regression] AArch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98371
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98302
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] Wrong |[9 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97144
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95731
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:13d47c37a2c043f3e5981e73e4c82158a39f41e8
commit r11-6609-g13d47c37a2c043f3e5981e73e4c82158a39f41e8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98629
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24ea113f75cfad38894dc1ad16b23c0538ef17d4
commit r11-6610-g24ea113f75cfad38894dc1ad16b23c0538ef17d4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95401
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94994
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98632
Bug ID: 98632
Summary: Warn about unspecified expression ordering for atomics
with non-relaxed memory ordering.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For goto crossing initialization, C++ makes it a hard error and C only has a
non-default warning (not even in -W), -Wjump-misses-init included in
-Wc++-compat.
As can be seen on:
int
foo (void)
{
goto a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 49948
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49948&action=edit
patch
untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> I guess it should be a !multiple_p (group_size, nunits) check instead?
Sounds plausible :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Given we now place CLOBBERS at scope ends even for C code (which is why we
"miscompile" the reduced testcase) doesn't it make sense to at least include
-Wjump-misses-init into -W[extra] or even -Wall?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98633
Bug ID: 98633
Summary: Bootstrap comparison failure, libcody/fatal.o differs
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe, but I think it is too late to do it now for GCC 11, it will take time
before we figure out how many projects will be affected by that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason why C++ has it as hard error is I think object
construction/destruction, in C the warning is for code to be portable to C++,
in plain C it is all about making sure variables are initialized, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98633
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm. I see in libcody/Makefile.in
revision.stamp: $(addprefix $(srcdir)/,. $(SUBDIRS))
@revision=$$(git -C $(srcdir) rev-parse HEAD 2>/dev/null) ;\
if test -n "$$revision" ;\
then r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> That's a feature branch that being integrated as is planed to have it in
> for 28.
>
> Essentially we use it to compile .el files into shared libraries we then
> load to have Elisp executed as native code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95034
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On:
int
combine (int a, int b)
{
int c = (a | b);
int d = ~(a & b);
return c & d;
}
it is the
/* (x | y) & ~(x & y) -> x ^ y */
(simplify
(bit_and:c (bit_ior @0 @1) (bit_not (bit_and @0 @1)))
(bit_xor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95034
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually in this case we are probably fine even if b can trap, the reason is
that
if a evaluated to true, then b in (a && b) is evaluated, and if a evaluates to
false, then b in (a || b) is evaluated. So it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
Bug ID: 98634
Summary: gcc 4.8.5 - 9.3.0 on target x86_64, when compile a exe
and linking with a so, and exe's source file extern a
var, the final exe has the var with the same name wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98635
Bug ID: 98635
Summary: ad-hoc requirement without semicolon creates internal
compiler bug
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
Bug ID: 98636
Summary: [ARM] ICE on passing incompatible options for fp16
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Right - that's the Qt bug I'm hoping to fix, but I don't get far because of the
ICE. :) The libstdc++ headers have been reorganized, so Qt's expectations that
numeric_limits is available without includin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
--- Comment #3 from zuogang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This is called a copy relocation. I suspect the GCC you are using is
> defaulting to PIE too.
the gcc in centos 7 maybe is not pie-default?
this verion is also has t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98637
Bug ID: 98637
Summary: Changing active union member via assignment expression
should require trivial default constructor in
constexpr context
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88629
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
--- Comment #4 from zuogang ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> And the bug is?
> This is due to copy relocations.
> And, it has nothing to do with the compiler, it is how linker handles it.
thanks for the reply, can you explain wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No RHEL or Fedora compilers are -pie by default, I hate when such important
details change silently under you.
Instead of changing the GCC default in these distros the rpm macros ensure PIE
by default when bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98638
Bug ID: 98638
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in lookup_page_table_entry)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: GC, ice-on-valid-code
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97978
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49948|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Isn't __attribute__((noipa)) usually used instead of __attribute__((noinline))
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
So it's caused by PCH:
$ cat qt.ii
[empty]
$ cat q.ii
#pragma GCC pch_preprocess "cmake_pch.hxx.gch"
#pragma GCC push_options
#pragma GCC target ""
#pragma GCC pop_options
$ g++ -x c++-header qt.ii -o cmak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
--- Comment #6 from zuogang ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> No RHEL or Fedora compilers are -pie by default, I hate when such important
> details change silently under you.
> Instead of changing the GCC default in these distros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just read something about copy relocations, bugzilla is not a tool for
education.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49952&action=edit
Slightly better patch
This gets rid of the regression in gfortran.dg/finalize_29.f08.
However, finalize_25.f90 e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95034
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried
--- match.pd.jj12021-01-05 16:33:21.809960885 +0100
+++ match.pd2021-01-12 12:47:11.232713918 +0100
@@ -1228,6 +1228,64 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
(bit_xor (bit_ior:c (bit_not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate, testing right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98638
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49953&action=edit
Preprocessed test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 49954
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49954&action=edit
Output of passing --verbose
Command line option used to compile:
../arm-stage1-build/gcc/xgc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
--- Comment #4 from Ev Drikos ---
Hello,
There are some open PRs related to elemental finalisers. Having seen
how you reallocate arrays, I'd the impression that the functionality
for polymorphic entities would had a similar design. As one may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98638
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
SSA name in some TYPE/DECL_SIZE tree?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e91910d3576eeac714c93ec25ea3b15012007903
commit r11-6612-ge91910d3576eeac714c93ec25ea3b15012007903
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks, with cross compiler I only see the error (not the internal compiler
error).
Anyway, can you please test it with g:e91910d3576eeac714c93ec25ea3b15012007903?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98638
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
module shape_mod
type rectangle
end type
type, extends (rectangle) :: square
real, allocatable :: r(:)
end type
end
use shape_mod
logical results(8)
class(rectangle)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98638
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Fortran lang_decl has
struct GTY(()) lang_decl {
/* Dummy variables. */
tree saved_descriptor;
and that eventually contains _121->r (SSA names which refer to def stmts
which refer to BBs). The decl i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98638
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98631
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
Unfortunately I am still getting the same ICE with
g:e91910d3576eeac714c93ec25ea3b15012007903.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I see. Is the 'error: selected fp16 options are incompatible' valid or not in
this case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52a170b1a1818b7521c25e76271638a448b3f630
commit r11-6613-g52a170b1a1818b7521c25e76271638a448b3f630
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98635
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #12 from Karine EM ---
Yes, I could do that (comment #7). But I reduce manually the program and the
problem was indeed the scenario in comment #8 (not between functions, only
different blocks, but I assume it is pretty much the same).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98611
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0bec6ceac47752616dd9fe0801344ed45db2fd3
commit r11-6614-ge0bec6ceac47752616dd9fe0801344ed45db2fd3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Then -Wjump-misses-init should warn even on the unreduced testcase...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630
--- Comment #14 from Karine EM ---
I did compile it that way:
> gcc-10 -w -O2 r.c -pedantic -Wall -Wextra
but got no warnings at all. Should I add any flag?
Thanks!
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
