https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112407
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
> Created attachment 57835 [details]
> An alternative fix for the PR
>
> Hi Tomas,
>
> Would you prefer the compiler to give warning rather than letting the
> possib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78664
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
Bug ID: 114532
Summary: gcc -fno-common option causes performance degradation
on certain architectures
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Mor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114533
Bug ID: 114533
Summary: libquadmath: printf: fix misaligned access on args
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109926
--- Comment #9 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Comment on attachment 55135 [details]
> config
>
> configure:18893: checking fenv.h usability
> configure:18893: i586-msdosdjgpp-c++ -c -g -O2 -std=c++11
> -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109926
--- Comment #10 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Comment on attachment 55135 [details]
> config
>
> configure:18893: checking fenv.h usability
> configure:18893: i586-msdosdjgpp-c++ -c -g -O2 -std=c++11
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109926
--- Comment #11 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> > Comment on attachment 55135 [details]
> > config
> >
> > configure:18893: checking fenv.h usability
> > configure:1889
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112844
--- Comment #2 from Petr Skocik ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> With -Os you ask the code to be small. So, while internally the hint is
> still present in edge probabilities, -Os is considered more important and
> certain code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #29 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #28)
> The bug is about the issue of lacking diagnostics, it should be fine to make
> note of various approaches to remedy the problem in one bug report.
>
OK, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #30 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #29)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #28)
> > The bug is about the issue of lacking diagnostics, it should be fine to make
> > note of various approaches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114534
Bug ID: 114534
Summary: Feature request: extend VLA support in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90181
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647832.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114210
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the class method is similar to how normal functions work:
```
void
foo (int* __restrict b);
void
foo (int* b)
{
static_assert(__is_same(decltype(b), int*));
}
void
foo1 (int* b);
void
foo1 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114210
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Exactly like the following standard C23 code:
```
void nonrestirct();
void restirctcall();
void
foo (int* a, int* __restrict b, int n);
void
foo (int* a, int* b, int n)
{
typeof(b) c = b;
_G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114210
--- Comment #3 from Sirraide ---
Ah, that makes sense: it’s basically treated like any other top-level
cv-qualifier on a function parameter—it’s just that it happens to syntactically
be in an unusual place compared to cv-qualifiers on regular fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114030
--- Comment #3 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Reduced testcase:
> ```
> union U0 {
>int f2;
>char f4;
> };
>
> int g_3;
> union U0 g_34 = {-1L};
> char func_1() {
> int t11 = g_
-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-git/configure
--prefix=/home/abenson/Galacticus/Tools_Devel --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.1 20240330 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c ice1
25 matches
Mail list logo
