https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
--- Comment #26 from Gubbins ---
If anyone is interested, I received the following response on my bug report
with Apple.
> This issue behaves as intended based on the following:
>
> The program produced by ld64 seems fine:
>
> [/tmp/35663253]>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
--- Comment #27 from Gubbins ---
> Dave, the fix for PR 86138 might also fix this case for Darwin - could you
> check that please?
I can confirm that using my homebrew-installed gcc 8.2.0 package on OSX, the
issue no longer occurs. I don't know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
Gubbins changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.gittins at gmail dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
--- Comment #21 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #20)
> Your failure happens even w/o LTO, am I right?
> But yes, the problem looks very similar to what happens for ld.bfd.
You are right.
Does anyone know how I would rais
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
--- Comment #24 from Gubbins ---
> > Does anyone know how I would raise this with someone who can fix it on the
> > Darwin side? Or could it be worked around by gcc?
>
> Linker should provide precise information to GCC.
FWIW, I have raised a bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
Gubbins changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.gittins at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #5 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> > Therefore no field initializers are involved. The warning in this situation
> > is surely incorrect? I think the original bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #6 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> > The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate
> > initialization, but is in fact value initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #7 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Gubbins from comment #2)
> > > The original bug report points that in C++11 this is *not* aggregate
> > > initi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #9 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #5)
> > The warning is still produced with gcc 4.9.2 (surely that's supported?)
>
> The warning isn't given for 5.1 and trunk (not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
--- Comment #11 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> (In reply to Gubbins from comment #9)
> > I see, thanks. Will there be no more releases on the 4.9 branch?
>
> There will be more. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-
11 matches
Mail list logo
