https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103975
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, the oracle assumes that for MEM[(struct ovs_list *)pos_32 + 64B] pos_32
needs to still point to some valid object (even if it's not of type ovs_list)
and a pointer to 'start' cannot be constructed from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0552605b7b27dc6beed62e71bd05bc1efd191c0d
commit r12-6430-g0552605b7b27dc6beed62e71bd05bc1efd191c0d
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103802
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103973
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103971
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103976
Bug ID: 103976
Summary: Very large overhead for if(false) openmp pragmas
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103975
--- Comment #3 from Aaron Kimball ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you try a newer verison of GCC since 7.x is no longer support like maybe
> 11.2.0 or even 10.3.0?
Hi Andrew,
I tried again and figured out the issue in my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103975
--- Comment #4 from Aaron Kimball ---
Created attachment 52161
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52161&action=edit
Test case for gcc 11.2.0 demonstrating issue
Attaching updated test case for gcc 11.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Self-contained test-case:
extern __inline __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)) int sprintf(
char *__restrict __s, const char *__restrict __fmt, ...) {
return __builtin___sprintf_chk(__s, 2 - 1, __builtin_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19d81fda48f30c4fc11c8912749351acd9159c17
commit r12-6433-g19d81fda48f30c4fc11c8912749351acd9159c17
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase with nicer formatting:
extern inline __attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__)) int
sprintf (char *restrict s, const char *restrict fmt, ...)
{
return __builtin___sprintf_chk (s, 1, __builtin_object_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |siddhesh at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Keywords|wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Last reconfirmed|2021-09-25 00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100220
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Indeed similar interaction between inlining, static var const promotion and IPA
CP / inline heuristics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Severity|normal
on zen2 and 3 with -flto the speedup seems to be cca 12% for both -O2
and -Ofast -march=native which is both very nice!
Zen1 for some reason sees less improvement, about 6%.
With PGO it is 3.8%
Overall it seems a win, but there are few noteworthy issues.
I also see a 6.69% regression on x64 with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #42 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
on zen2 and 3 with -flto the speedup seems to be cca 12% for both -O2
and -Ofast -march=native which is both very nice!
Zen1 for some reason sees less improvement, about 6%.
With PGO it is 3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34719
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70763
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100314
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
With -O1 i get:
IPA function summary for main/7 inlinable
global time: 72.936364
self size: 6
global size: 19
min size: 16
self stack: 0
global stack:44
size:15.000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100314
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
However i is also dead at dse time:
void d (int m)
{
int k;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100220
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||100314
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100221
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Note handling this special case doesn't resolve the issue in the original
testcase since the virtual operand setup is different there. As said, DSE
is not set up to follow multiple paths to uses (sth akin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100221
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52162
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52162&action=edit
untested patch fixing the reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 regression] ICE |[10 regression] ICE
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Maximets ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> the IVOPTs reference is likely due to the fact that while IVOPTs uses
> uintptrs to create the base pointer the TARGET_MEM_REF contained arithmetic
> itself is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
Last reconfirmed|2021-03-07 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I already reported https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3653 for the std::hash
use in . Removing exceptions, typeinfo and coroutines is unnecessary
and irrelevant to this bug report. Stop using GCC bugzil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98167
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
-fno-trapping-math tells us we are not concerned about FP exception flags (so
say spurious FP_INEXACT is OK), -fno-signalling-nans is needed as well I guess.
Oh, and in practice performing the multiplicati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97147
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
Bug ID: 103977
Summary: ice in try_vectorize_loop_1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ilya Maximets from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > the IVOPTs reference is likely due to the fact that while IVOPTs uses
> > uintptrs to create the base pointer th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97071
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Another possibility would be to do this on GIMPLE, creating parts of the
constant pool early with CONST_DECLs and loads from them for constants that are
never legitimate (immediate) in instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C source code is
int *freelist_randomize_list;
int cache_random_seq_create_count_i;
void cache_random_seq_create_count() {
for (; cache_random_seq_create_count_i; cache_random_seq_create_count_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #42 from Richard Biener ---
See PR101641 for an interesting case where eliding a round-trip causes
wrong-code generation. It's union related so might not apply 1:1 to C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #43 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #41)
> > Thus for types without a non-trivial ctor/dtor you do not need to use
> > placement new. So take your example and remove the placement new.
> > Does that c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97071
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Another possibility would be to do this on GIMPLE, creating parts of the
> constant pool early with CONST_DECLs and loads from them for constants that
> are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
/* For epilogues start the analysis from the first mode. The motivation
behind starting from the beginning comes from cases where the VECTOR_MODES
array may contain length-agnostic and length-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-11
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97071
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > Another possibility would be to do this on GIMPLE, creating parts of the
> > constant pool early with CONST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103891
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b417b35824fb5c15e3ee958cb86436b3409ebea
commit r12-6439-g5b417b35824fb5c15e3ee958cb86436b3409ebea
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79724
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pierre-Marie de Rodat
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7aa3800216ea991050ec904a28c628cd7799021b
commit r12-6459-g7aa3800216ea991050ec904a28c628cd7799021b
Author: Arnaud Charlet
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:265d3e1a4e3d6c71d354f859302f023dc2d33f62
commit r12-6474-g265d3e1a4e3d6c71d354f859302f023dc2d33f62
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79724
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|MOVED |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103976
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even with if (0) it has to do that. if (0) doesn't say act as if the construct
isn't there, it says that it should act as if num_threads is forced to 1. It
still creates an inactive parallel region and nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Maximets ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> What is the reason why OVS (and kernel) doesn't use 2 variables, one for the
> iterator that is a pointer to the prev/next structure only and one assigned
> e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103974
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102670
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ilya Maximets from comment #7)
> One thing that is not clear to me is if the following code has an UB or not:
>
> struct member* pos;
> struct ovs_list start;
>
> pos = (struct me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103603
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3760d9d7b5410f16236ed15d02ec1d8a7d16fddb
commit r11-9452-g3760d9d7b5410f16236ed15d02ec1d8a7d16fddb
Author: Andrew MacLeod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103464
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3760d9d7b5410f16236ed15d02ec1d8a7d16fddb
commit r11-9452-g3760d9d7b5410f16236ed15d02ec1d8a7d16fddb
Author: Andrew MacLeo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103974
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102692
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f34f8cc1d064bfaaed723312c71e92f495d429b
commit r12-6476-g4f34f8cc1d064bfaaed723312c71e92f495d429b
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #43 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #42)
> I also see a 6.69% regression on x64 with -Ofast -march=native -flto
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=475.377.0
I can reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103974
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
ACK. I wandered through the tester this morning, the vast majority of the
current failures are the ira_flattening ICE. Though I think there's likely one
other ICE in IRA (frv-elf, ICE in check_allocation)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103804
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103804
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103821
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71b72132011a47a4b39950d95718f18d1218978c
commit r12-6477-g71b72132011a47a4b39950d95718f18d1218978c
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103821
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ilya Maximets from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > What is the reason why OVS (and kernel) doesn't use 2 variables, one for the
> > iterator that is a pointer to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:026d44cbbd42653908f9faf6b80773f03e1bb1a0
commit r12-6478-g026d44cbbd42653908f9faf6b80773f03e1bb1a0
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:404c787e2bfe8cae666b075ed903990ea452220e
commit r12-6479-g404c787e2bfe8cae666b075ed903990ea452220e
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea19c8f33a3a8d2b52f89f1fade0a21e3c779190
commit r12-6480-gea19c8f33a3a8d2b52f89f1fade0a21e3c779190
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f07810659616221c3bf4177c1fc2ca3607f7728
commit r12-6481-g1f07810659616221c3bf4177c1fc2ca3607f7728
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70090
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06bc1b0c539e3a60692d7432d15e701c38610f80
commit r12-6482-g06bc1b0c539e3a60692d7432d15e701c38610f80
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103617
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
Is this actually a bug? I don't believe wide_int works either? PP doesn't
work with class instances...
(gdb) p lh.lower_bound(0)
$3 = { = {val = {-2147483648, 18992502, 140737232043872,
140737233406440,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
--- Comment #16 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Should be fixed with that patch. May I close this or wait for confirmation
from the reporter?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77608
--- Comment #8 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
The test case for pr 103961 exposed a flaw in my patch, where assuming
wholesize isn't always safe or at least would need more careful consideration.
I need to think this through some more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103978
Bug ID: 103978
Summary: AddressSanitizer CHECK failed
../../../../src/libsanitizer/asan/asan_thread.cpp:367
"((ptr[0] == kCurrentStackFrameMagic)) != (0)" (0x0,
0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103978
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-11
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
--- Comment #17 from Manuel Lauss ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #16)
> Should be fixed with that patch. May I close this or wait for confirmation
> from the reporter?
I can no longer reproduce the original issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103961
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103891
--- Comment #8 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
That allowed me to build mold-1.0.0 with clang-13 + libstdc++. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103979
Bug ID: 103979
Summary: asm goto is not considered volatile
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
Assignee|tschwinge at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #10 from Ilya Maximets ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Ilya Maximets from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > > What is the reason why OVS (and kernel) doesn't use 2 variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ilya Maximets from comment #10)
> Doesn't sound very intuitive. I guess, it's easier to just add a NULL
> pointer
> check after the loop, i.e. ovs_list_insert(pos ? &pos->elem : &start, ...).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103964
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Maximets ---
> (In reply to Ilya Maximets from comment #7)
> > One thing that is not clear to me is if the following code has an UB or not:
> >
> > struct member* pos;
> > struct ovs_list start;
> >
> > po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
--- Comment #14 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> Fixed on trunk.
What about source_location?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
--- Comment #14 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> Fixed on trunk.
What about source_location?
--- Comment #15 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> Fixed on trunk.
What about sour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is the first time anybody has pointed out it's missing, that's why it's
still missing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103726
--- Comment #17 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> This is the first time anybody has pointed out it's missing, that's why it's
> still missing.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/freestanding
Btw
ciso646, cstdali
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
