https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109385
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang rejects it with:
:4:16: error: expression contains unexpanded parameter pack 'vals'
return [=]() {
^
:9:10: error: variable has incomplete type 'void'
auto result = sort_fn()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104707
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to rvalue from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > > since all modern operating systems have a large enough parameter space
> > > (all of them have 262k at least).
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-03
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
Bug ID: 109386
Summary: [13 Regression] Frange value relation related
miscompilation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109387
Bug ID: 109387
Summary: "definition of explicitly-defaulted" error with
explicit template instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109388
Bug ID: 109388
Summary: clang warnings related to Modula-2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: modula2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54802&action=edit
gcc13-pr109386.patch
Untested patch. I've tried to fix the incorrect registraction of value
relation (in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108241
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108241
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Patch candidate:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/615048.html
Sorry, this link:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/615044.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108086
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:160c5f354a6dc8a660ff8ad8574279b0d3fb412d
commit r12-9377-g160c5f354a6dc8a660ff8ad8574279b0d3fb412d
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108508
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44ca5bc6800987e56db3e5537079b10ad5faac88
commit r12-9379-g44ca5bc6800987e56db3e5537079b10ad5faac88
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108603
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:caecd24e230c4727c88ad117bab0342f378e81f7
commit r12-9380-gcaecd24e230c4727c88ad117bab0342f378e81f7
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108430
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33a69d0b0b772610463d1d586f3f0c9820fc969e
commit r12-9378-g33a69d0b0b772610463d1d586f3f0c9820fc969e
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65216cd44b8c89640ad987b6227ea1d748456a41
commit r12-9381-g65216cd44b8c89640ad987b6227ea1d748456a41
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e11513c7688f583d1f4d0961d79d8aa775add03d
commit r12-9384-ge11513c7688f583d1f4d0961d79d8aa775add03d
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61bdd3c38039e1e309d5cf78c16c4052f6e09bea
commit r12-9382-g61bdd3c38039e1e309d5cf78c16c4052f6e09bea
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108979
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e11513c7688f583d1f4d0961d79d8aa775add03d
commit r12-9384-ge11513c7688f583d1f4d0961d79d8aa775add03d
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109072
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eff10fe7384d1504f2c92db1fd44c663f737f57d
commit r12-9383-geff10fe7384d1504f2c92db1fd44c663f737f57d
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108571
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e11513c7688f583d1f4d0961d79d8aa775add03d
commit r12-9384-ge11513c7688f583d1f4d0961d79d8aa775add03d
Author: Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108430
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108508
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE in |[11 Backport] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108603
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108608
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103429
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109072
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96919
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108681
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109388
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109383
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The swapping isn't really needed, the testcase can be simplified to:
static inline float
foo (float x, float y)
{
float u = __builtin_fabsf (x);
float v = __builtin_fabsf (y);
if (!(u >= v))
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109383
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/typeindex
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/typeindex
@@ -87,13 +87,21 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
strong_ordering
operator<=>(const type_index& __rhs) const n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109383
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For !__GXX_TYPEINFO_EQUALITY_INLINE we need to export a new symbol from the
library, so the patch above doesn't optimize that case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109380
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #4 from L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
Bug ID: 109389
Summary: g++ file.cpp -lgmp (option only works after filename)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109390
Bug ID: 109390
Summary: Does not reject specialized non-type argument of
dependent type in class template partial
specialization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109386
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54803
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54803&action=edit
gcc13-pr109386.patch
Untested fix. When LT/LE/GT/GE have lhs [0, 0] or UNLT/UNLE/UNGT/UNGE have lhs
[1, 1], w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107733
--- Comment #4 from Geoffrey ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> ...and also, as you note:
> * deleting the unrelated code ` int *d = 0;` should not affect the result
> (but does)
>
>
> > the path note `(3) 'e' is NULL` is wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109391
Bug ID: 109391
Summary: Inefficient codegen on AArch64 when structure types
are returned
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108428
--- Comment #2 from Geoffrey ---
Hi, David! Could you spare a little time to explain this case for me? Please
^v^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109190
--- Comment #1 from Geoffrey ---
Hi, David! Could you spare a little time to explain this case to me? Thanks a
lt!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|unquoted keyword 'float' in |[13 Regression] unquoted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And something is conflict with something_else is incorrect grammar, so
%<-march=%s%>: z*inx conflicts with floating-point extensions ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109319
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109254
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109381
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
--- Comment #2 from Bernd ---
@ Jonathan Wakely
Thank you for correcting me and setting the issue solved.
Sorry for the wrong report. For a long time g++ accepted the -lgmp before the
filename, clang++ still does. That's why I thought that thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109190
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang is not a linker either. Both Clang and GCC just pass the options to the
linker.
Any difference in behaviour is a difference in the linker, not a difference
between Clang and GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for shared libraries it might the case the gcc you using defaults to
passing --as-needed to the linker and the clang driver does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note Debian (and Ubuntu) has a patch to their GCC which does cause the default
arguments to ld to include --as-needed . That is why you are seeing a
difference between gcc and clang. Note if you build GCC fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da3fd01757297c1d20cf3dcd76046488da737569
commit r13-6986-gda3fd01757297c1d20cf3dcd76046488da737569
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109388
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a75f0a02e5006e081b335acd36300a85bef8eb8
commit r13-6987-g9a75f0a02e5006e081b335acd36300a85bef8eb8
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109388
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. PR93385.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109361
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 54804
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54804&action=edit
v1 of patch for this
This patch works, but it also enables the output on stderr, and I see
significant differe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104272
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
--- Comment #3 from Damian ---
Hello Jakub,
withe the change "%<-march=%s%>: z*inx conflicts with floating-point extensions
?"
the build works again
Best regards
Damian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104272
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Following the allocation itself, we get:
solver._data.dim[0].lbound = 1;
solver._data.dim[0].ubound = 2;
solver._data.dim[0].stride = 1;
solver._data.offset = -1;
solver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Bug ID: 109392
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in tree_vec_extract, at
tree-vect-generic.cc:177
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
Bug ID: 109393
Summary: Very trivial address calculation does not fold
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note sometimes -fwrapv will optimize things because it can assume that overflow
is defined as wrapping and this is one case that is true. Yes it sounds counter
intuitive but it is true. Even re-association h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109394
Bug ID: 109394
Summary: list-directed read of character from complex number
Product: gcc
Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109394
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78212
John DelSignore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jdelsignore at perforce dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
I'm not sure what is expected here:
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gnat/div_zero.exe
warning: Unable to find libthread_db matching inferior's thread library, thread
de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #35 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #34)
> Created attachment 54787 [details]
> patch for C FE to add size expressions to VM types in structs
thanks a lot for the patch.
could you please p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW: the "un-dead code" was introduced with r10-2912-g70570ec1927450 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> As far as I can tell, this test has always failed on both 32-bit linux and
> hpux.
Does libgcc/config/pa/milli64.S contain CFI directives or EH tables?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-04-03 4:46 p.m., ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
>
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> As far as I can tell, this test h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
Bug ID: 109395
Summary: -Wvla-larger-than has no effect when compiling without
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> No.
Then the unwinder cannot unwind through it and the test cannot pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Łukasiewicz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is by designed and is even documented:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-
> Wvla-larger-than_003d
>
> -Wvla-la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #2)
> Passing `-ftree-vrp` doesn't activate it either
Because of another part of the documentation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#Optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Łukasiewicz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #2)
> > Passing `-ftree-vrp` doesn't activate it either
>
> Because of another part of the documentation:
> http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108497
--- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Not now nor in the near future. After all, it isn't a regression, so
> couldn't be fixed during stage4 anyway.
This bug affects GCC>=8. GCC<=7 work fine on this c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #4)
> So there is not way of detecting automatic VLA in "debug release"?
-Wvla works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Łukasiewicz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #4)
> > So there is not way of detecting automatic VLA in "debug release"?
>
> -Wvla works.
>
> https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:16:20PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > Remove ice-on-invalid-code as I don't ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes and that is still a VLA in terms of C99 definition ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note GCC's C++ front-end even rejects VLA definitions like that for parameters
so I don't know how useful they are really.
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
