[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Łukasz Kucharski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luk32 at o2 dot pl --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/87068] New: No diagnostic on an ill-formed [[fallthrough]]

: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: luk32 at o2 dot pl Target Milestone: --- gcc cleanly compiles an ill-formed [[fallthrough]] example from the standard, producing no diagnostic. I believe it's a bug. Problematic code: // http://eel.is/c++

[Bug inline-asm/62144] "Frame pointer required, but reserved" error with -fomit-frame-pointer but only with -m32 -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144 Łukasz Kucharski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luk32 at o2 dot pl --- Comment #5

[Bug inline-asm/62144] "Frame pointer required, but reserved" error with -fomit-frame-pointer but only with -m32 -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144 --- Comment #6 from Łukasz Kucharski --- Comment on attachment 33833 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33833 Example program that fails compilation with optimization enabled. Hello, I believe we run into the same problem, ho

[Bug inline-asm/62144] "Frame pointer required, but reserved" error with -fomit-frame-pointer but only with -m32 -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144 --- Comment #8 from Łukasz Kucharski --- Jakub, fair enough. However, changing the optimization level should not break the compilation. The issue is, at least for me, is not that we can't omit the frame pointer, but that it depends on the optimi