at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks; I can reproduce it too; am investigating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch kit:
"[PATCH 1/2] Eliminate global state from -fsave-optimization-record"
* https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01552.html
"[PATCH 2/2] Fix -fsave-optimization-record ICE (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Nov 19 16:31:03 2018
New Revision: 266279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Eliminate global state from -fsave-optimization-record
As work towards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Nov 19 16:42:03 2018
New Revision: 266280
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix -fsave-optimization-record ICE (PR tree-optimization/87025)
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87025
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider this code:
namespace json
{
enum { JSON_OBJECT };
}
void test ()
{
JSON_OBJECT;
}
gcc 6
||2018-11-20
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Am working on a fix
||2018-11-27
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Confirmed; working on a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 27 15:49:43 2018
New Revision: 266516
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/83173: Additional check before decrementing highest_lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 27 15:53:51 2018
New Revision: 266518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266518&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/83173: New test
2018-11-27 Mike Gulick
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 27 16:04:31 2018
New Revision: 266520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/83173: Enhance -fdump-internal-locations output
gcc/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2018-11-29
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this. I'm able to reproduce it (with r266459 fwiw) and am
investigating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88257
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Aha: it happens with the C++ FE, but not C.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88121
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Nov 29 21:21:56 2018
New Revision: 266644
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: namespaces and scopes for enum values (PR c++/88121)
Consider thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88121
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88257
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Nov 30 15:57:37 2018
New Revision: 266671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ICE in substring locations from macros in header files (PR
preproce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88257
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Dec 4 21:33:08 2018
New Revision: 266798
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266798&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
spellcheck.c: add another selftest for PR c/82967
This adds another t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
I did a little investigation of this.
A tweaked reproducer, for both C and C++:
int test (void)
{
int vresults1 = 0;
int aresult = aresults +1;
return aresult;
}
I think that we should omit an
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Given this C++11 code:
enum struct a : int {
one, two
};
struct foo {
int e1, e2;
a e3;
} arr[] = {
{ 1, 2, a::one },
{ 3, a::two
||2018-12-05
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Am testing a candidate patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, clang trunk currently gives the same erroneous suggestion:
:4:19: error: use of undeclared identifier 'aresults'; did you mean
'aresult'?
int aresult = aresults +1;
^~~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85110
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Dec 6 15:25:12 2018
New Revision: 266856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266856&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: improvements to diagnostics using %P (more PR c++/85110)
This pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Problem still present in trunk for gcc 6 (e.g. r232888), albeit it now with
column numbers and ranges:
foo.cc:8:21: error: redefinition of ‘const int foo::u’
const int foo::u;
^
foo.cc:4:36
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 27 18:57:51 2016
New Revision: 232893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libcpp: use better locations for _Pragma tokens (preprocessor/69126)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20906
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62316
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #23 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 37496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37496&action=edit
Patch to fix the case in comment #12 (for next stage 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #22 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #20)
[...]
> I maintain my opinion that any user-facing diagnostic using %qE is
> potentially broken.
Thanks; I'm inclined to agree.
Notes to self: implementat
||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Yes, this has bitten me (esp. with Makefiles).
Looks like this was implemented in r217391; resolving as dup of PR 36312.
*** This bug has been marked as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36312
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||_paul at bk dot ru
--- Comment #20 from
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02243.html
reported a regression introduced by r232893 (for PR preprocessor/69126)
Minimal reproducer seems to be:
$ cat /tmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Breakpoint 4, linemap_compare_locations (set=0x77ff6000, pre=2147483641,
post=post@entry=2147483656) at ../../src/libcpp/line-map.c:1326
(gdb) call inform (2147483641, "pre=2147483641")
../../src/gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
linemap_compare_locations does the right thing if passed a pair of ordinary
locations, or if both locations are within the same macro expansion.
It generates nonse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Well, that one has been introduced in r232893, while this one far earlier.
They could be symptoms of the same problem though.
Quoting myself from https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> The ultimate right fix (for both) may be to fix linemap_compare_locations to
> cope with macro locations.
...then again, Jakub's patch from comment #4 may be OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> No patch is needed to expose this bug.
>
> Test case:
Thanks. This is almost certainly my fault, probably due to r229884. Sorry.
I plan to fix this once I get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |other
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm
||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69664
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Issue appears to be with rich_location::override_column, it's called by
cpp_diagnostic_with_line, but it doesn't seem to be working. Am investigating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69664
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00372.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Looking at the LTO data creation, by putting a breakpoint in cc1plus on
lto_output_location to see the values that are written, I see that the
bogus-looking location is coming from this ordinary map. It has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
A more minimal reproducer for these insane line numbers:
$ cat test.C
# 9 "" 2
not_a_type a;
# With recent trunk:
$ gcc -c test.C
line-map.c: file "" left but not entered
test.C:1048537:1: error: ‘not_a_typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(FWIW, the test case seems to run to completion if I remove the assert in
comment #1)
at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
Is there any way to do multiline comments in gfortran?
Am attempting to write expected output like this:
! { dg-begin-multiline-output "" }
EXPECTED OUTPUT TO GO HERE
! { dg-end-multiline-output "" }
If n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69664
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Feb 8 17:33:45 2016
New Revision: 233223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69664: fix rich_location::override_column
gcc/testsuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69664
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00646.html
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: plugins
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Whilst porting gcc-python-plugin to gcc 6 I ran into this:
In file included from gcc-cfg.c:40:0:
/home/david/coding/gcc-pytho
||2016-02-11
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00737.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69758
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Feb 11 11:26:54 2016
New Revision: 28
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=28&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR plugins/69758: add params.list to PLUGIN_HEADERS
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69758
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: s390x-ibm-linux-gnu
Target: s390x-ibm-linux-gnu
Build: s390x-ibm-linux-gnu
I&#
||2016-02-12
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch posted as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00830.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69265
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 17:39:27 2016
New Revision: 233382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/69265 and 69453: improved suggestions for various misspelled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 17:39:27 2016
New Revision: 233382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/69265 and 69453: improved suggestions for various misspelled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69265
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69779
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 18:37:35 2016
New Revision: 233385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/69779: fix bogus cleanup code used by libgccjit affecting s39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Feb 12 19:18:03 2016
New Revision: 233386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/69554: avoid excessive source printing for widely-separated l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Bug 60526 depends on bug 69554, which changed state.
Bug 69554 Summary: [6 Regression] Multi-location diagnostics writes too many
lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69554
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69859
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Running under valgrind, it looks like it's a use-after-free error:
$ cat ../../src/z7.f90
program p
type t
character(2), allocatable :: a(*)
character(*), allocatable :: b(2)
character(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #25 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #26 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #25)
[...]
> I have a patch that seems to work for this test case; am testing it more
> thoroughly now.
Candidate patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016
New Revision: 233637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558)
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016
New Revision: 233637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558)
We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #28 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016
New Revision: 233637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558)
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:44:28 2016
New Revision: 233638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69126: avoid comparing ad-hoc and non-ad-hoc locations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
--- Comment #29 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 23 17:44:28 2016
New Revision: 233638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69126: avoid comparing ad-hoc and non-ad-hoc locations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
(quoting Steven Bosscher)
--
$ cat t.c
void foo (void);
struct {
int coordx, coordy, coordz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69968
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69968
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> but the distance from coorzd1 to coordz1 should be 2 one deletion and one
> insertion. Why's that not found?
I think the distance given in the initial comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69968
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
Gah; I had typos in some of these; fixing them inline below (I hope):
> With Damerau-Levenshtein, we'd have (I think):
>
> coorzd1 -> coordz1 (Damerau-Levenshte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66298
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
IIRC, currently the warning is checking for guards that appear to guard a
statement, but which don't; the above examples are all for guards that don't
appear to guard a statement, but do.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Reddit user "sysop073" observed here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/47pejg/gcc_6_wmisleadingindentation_vs_goto_fail/d0eonwd
that the wording of -W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69993
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
There's an alternate suggestion here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/47pejg/gcc_6_wmisleadingindentation_vs_goto_fail/d0eqyih
> This is just passive voice, there is nothing tricky about it.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #11)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> > Bingo! With both files present I can even reproduce it on my x86_64 machine.
>
> Unfortunately, I c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
(gdb) p *map
$8 = { = {start_location = 98229568, reason = LC_RENAME_VERBATIM},
to_file = 0x2709850 "cmds-check.c", to_line = 7836,
included_from = -1, sysp = 0 '\000', m_column_and_range_bits = 12,
m_ran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
A minimal reproducer:
$ cat t3.c
extern int printf (const char *__restrict __format, ...);
void test (void)
{
printf
("%llu012334567890123345678901233456789012334567890123345678901233456789012334567890123
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 37825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37825&action=edit
Minimal reproducer
Looks like BZ line-wrapped the inline copy; here it is as an attachment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> Created attachment 37825 [details]
> Minimal reproducer
>
> Looks like BZ line-wrapped the inline copy; here it is as an attachment.
Interestingly, Chromium l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
--- Comment #20 from David Malcolm ---
In r230331 I added a range-packing optimization; looks like I forgot to update
linemap_position_for_loc_and_offset accordingly. Sorry. The input "offset" is
a column offset, and that is no longer applicabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
--- Comment #21 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Mar 1 01:02:49 2016
New Revision: 233836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69985: fix ICE with long lines in -Wformat
gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69985
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00068.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Confirmed.
This bug is arguably two different issues: the one in comment #0 and the one in
comment #1.
Richi: I see that you confirmed this and raised the prio
at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patches posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00260.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00261.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> But even if you clear the sensitive data from the stack array, it might
> still live in the registers from which you stored the sensitive data into
> that array e
1001 - 1100 of 3389 matches
Mail list logo
