https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> > BTW, the __MEM_REF output from the dumps does not work in -fgimple either.
> > More errors.
>
> Can you share an example?
This is from gcc.c-torture/execute/961125-1.c compiled with -fgimple:
char * b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
Bug 102566 depends on bug 49244, which changed state.
Bug 49244 Summary: __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80004
Bug 80004 depends on bug 49244, which changed state.
Bug 49244 Summary: __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
>
> --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> > > BTW, the __MEM_REF output from the dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
More reduced testcase:
class A
{
int index;
double param;
float clen;
};
extern A Get ();
class B : A
{
B ();
};
B::B () : A { Get () } {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 102616, which changed state.
Bug 102616 Summary: [C++23] P2334R1 - Add support for preprocessing directives
elifdef and elifndef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102616
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:14 AM rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
> Btw, please report cases where -gimple doesn't produce valid GIMPLE FE
> inputs (OK, there are known cases with mangled symbol names when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8892d532d66910e518bc135a851a104322385ca2
commit r12-4206-g8892d532d66910e518bc135a851a104322385ca2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
ux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/data/bin/gcc-dev/ --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211006 (experimental) (GCC)
git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102608
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba837323dbda2bca5a1c8a4c78092a88241dcfa3
commit r12-4207-gba837323dbda2bca5a1c8a4c78092a88241dcfa3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102624
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 102612, which changed state.
Bug 102612 Summary: [C++23] P2242R3 - Non-literal variables (and labels and
gotos) in constexpr functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294
commit r12-4208-g90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Even with plain -O1 I see the wrong 0 result, -O0 and -O2 are fine. Testcase
that aborts:
int a, f, l, m, q, c, d, g;
long b, e;
struct g {
signed h;
signed i;
unsigned j;
unsigned k;
};
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Workaround committed, so for OpenMP it shouldn't trigger anymore.
But for
int
foo (char *p)
{
long double l = 0.0;
__builtin_clear_padding (&l);
return __builtin_memcpy (&l, p, sizeof (l));
}
it still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The assembly difference r11-8007 to r11-8008 is:
--- pr102627.s 2021-10-06 06:32:46.0 -0400
+++ pr102627.s 2021-10-06 06:33:00.0 -0400
@@ -77,10 +77,10 @@ main:
movq%rdx, %rcx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98056
--- Comment #13 from Avi Kivity ---
In current master (90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294), we don't ICE, but
instead get this error:
coroutine-initializer-list.cc: In member function ‘task task::e()’:
coroutine-initializer-list.cc:23:3: e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56659
--- Comment #5 from Paul ---
Just tried all versions of gfortran available up to 10.2.0: the very same
'internal compiler error' is still reported using the initial reproducer.
May that be connected to the old Linux we're using (CentOS 7.8)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98056
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #13)
> In current master (90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294), we don't ICE,
> but instead get this error:
>
> coroutine-initializer-list.cc: In member function ‘tas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96339
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
1. Need large model crtbegin*.o and crtend*.o.
2. Need large mode libgcc.a, libgcc_eh.a and libgcov.a.
3. Need large mode lib*.a if we want to link with lib*.a
4. Need the large model libc.a if we want to support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > Here is a slightly more reduced testcase (without the reasonable val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> play?
-fno-thread-jumps fixes the bug.
> If so, you could try to narrow it down to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> > Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> > play?
>
> -fno-thread-jumps fixes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> > Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> > play?
>
> -fno-thread-jumps fixes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102611
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
1. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:19 passes.
2. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:20 fails.
3. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:1-20 fails.
4. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:2-20 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102198
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101883
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52dd840c5eba25ef54dee3f1c78f371032a7c051
commit r11-9078-g52dd840c5eba25ef54dee3f1c78f371032a7c051
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
commit r11-9079-gdc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
commit r11-9079-gdc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102163
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59c6831682dfa8bec2b5a62bdc85739924970808
commit r11-9080-g59c6831682dfa8bec2b5a62bdc85739924970808
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:729cf2ea979f396e706625b1669087d5920b8c2a
commit r11-9081-g729cf2ea979f396e706625b1669087d5920b8c2a
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a411459b73b65d8a1235a16d6e2aac4eed17338
commit r11-9082-g5a411459b73b65d8a1235a16d6e2aac4eed17338
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
commit r11-9083-g1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98216
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
commit r11-9083-g1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95567
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e84436a273f0fbb42b9785ff5bb1deaf9a500f37
commit r11-9084-ge84436a273f0fbb42b9785ff5bb1deaf9a500f37
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102535
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d80c0e4584acc204ca9a2f8880ad455fef48371f
commit r11-9085-gd80c0e4584acc204ca9a2f8880ad455fef48371f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102547
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aef951f1aa0b50a8da12f6fe6e80f3fdaa4d98e
commit r11-9086-g1aef951f1aa0b50a8da12f6fe6e80f3fdaa4d98e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101883
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102163
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10 Regression]
|std:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 98486, which changed state.
Bug 98486 Summary: Variable template specialization doesn't account for
primary's constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95567
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102547
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
:1-1 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98257
Jason McCampbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonm at cadence dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102581
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
the problem is that we assume that merge is symmetric (merging a to b
succeeds if and only if merging b to a succeeds). There was one
symetrical path missing in the (fancy and bit ugly) logic on what we ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102474
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
may be dup of PR102581 (where I attached fix I am testing)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102628
Bug ID: 102628
Summary: [12 regression] New test case
libgomp.c-c++-common/alloc-9.c fails after its
introduction in r12-4033
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102543
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Caused by
commit 001e73373e6d2e7c756141e0d7ac8e24ae1574ad
Author: Sergey Shalnov
Date: Thu Feb 8 23:31:15 2018 +0100
re PR target/83008 ([performance] Is it better to avoid extra instructions
in da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102581
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually, this is shorter patch - we already should notice that one
range is contained in other, but we give up too early.
Honza
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h b/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h
index 6a9ed5ce54b..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
--- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor ---
GCC 12 has changed to point the warning at the closing curly as suggested in
pr90735 so its output now looks like this:
pr93644.c: In function ‘careadlinkat’:
pr93644.c:30:1: warning: function may return add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
Avi Kivity changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@cloudius-systems.com
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90735
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90556
Bug 90556 depends on bug 90735, which changed state.
Bug 90735 Summary: missing location in -Wreturn-local-addr on a function with
two return statements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90735
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102629
Bug ID: 102629
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have
decltype_type in lookup_base, at cp/search.c:233
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #20 from Thiago Macieira ---
And:
$ cat /tmp/test.cpp
#include
bool tbit(std::atomic &i)
{
return i.fetch_xor(CONSTANT, std::memory_order_relaxed) & (CONSTANT);
}
$ ~/dev/gcc/bin/gcc "-DCONSTANT=(1LL<<63)" -S -o - -O2 /tmp/test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51558|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #22 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> Created attachment 51559 [details]
> The new v3 patch
>
> The new v3 patch to check invalid mask.
v3? We were already up to v6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #22)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> > Created attachment 51559 [details]
> > The new v3 patch
> >
> > The new v3 patch to check invalid mask.
>
> v3? We wer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Bug ID: 102630
Summary: [12 Regression] Spurious -Warray-bounds with named
address space
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Patrick McGehearty from comment #8)
> My challenge is that the very old glibc on gcc135.fsffrance.org
> does not know about _TF_ vs _KF_ and _IF_. It refused to
> build the new libgcc/conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
Bug ID: 102631
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized cannot see through a series of
PHIs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
$ ./cc1 team.i -O2 -quiet -Wall
/home/aldyh/src/gcc/libgomp/team.c: In function ‘gomp_team_start’:
/home/aldyh/src/gcc/libgomp/team.c:315:34: warning: ‘start_data’ may be used
uninitialized in this function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102192
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 51562
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51562&action=edit
similar problem on aarch64 bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> Created attachment 51562 [details]
> similar problem on aarch64 bootstrap
$ ./cc1plus calls-aarch64.ii -O2 -quiet -Wall
In function ‘void mark_stack_region_us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Since we concluded this was a GCC bug, rather than an unavoidable
limitation of the warning, suppressing it in glibc seems inappropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
--- Comment #13 from Patrick McGehearty
---
I may be mistaken about the source of the issue being glibc.
Perhaps it is a system include file issue? Here are some
more details.
Here are some of the error messages I got when building with
__LIBG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
If the warning is keeping Glibc from building with GCC 12 then applying the
patch until this is resolved (hopefully still in stage 1, or in stage 3) seems
like a reasonable workaround. It wouldn't be the fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632
Bug ID: 102632
Summary: Missing AM_CCASFLAGS in libsanitizer Makefile.am
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60009
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Patrick McGehearty from comment #13)
> I may be mistaken about the source of the issue being glibc.
> Perhaps it is a system include file issue? Here are some
> more details.
>
> Here are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61355
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56659
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Paul from comment #5)
> Just tried all versions of gfortran available up to 10.2.0: the very same
> 'internal compiler error' is still reported using the initial reproducer.
Can you share the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Bug ID: 102633
Summary: warning for self-initialization despite -Wno-init-self
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|warning for |[11/12 Regression] warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102634
Bug ID: 102634
Summary: Optimization in dom2 pass makes wrong signed integer
overflow inference
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
