http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #68 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #67)
> *** Bug 59225 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
PR 59225 gave me an idea. Wouldn't it be possible to keep a PHI node with just
two ope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #18)
> > This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
>
> Is there an XPASS for gcc.dg/uninit-pr19430.c ?
>
> Als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
$ ~/test1/205036M/build/gcc/cc1 -O1 -Wuninitialized test.c
-fdump-tree-all-all-lineno
$ cat test.c.139t.uninit1
foo (intD.6 iD.1789)
{
intD.6 jD.1792;
intD.6 _5;
intD.6 _7;
;; basic block 2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #25 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #23)
> BTW, I suppose that in this test, -Wuninitialized should be changed to
> "-Wuninitialized -Wmaybe-uninitialized" in case it is decided later that
> -Wuni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #27 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #26)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #25)
> > I don't see any reason for -Wuninitialized to not enable
> > -Wmaybe-uninitialized.
>
> I can see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59257
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Thanks for the report. However, this testcase is not very useful for the
regression testsuite. We need a minimal testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This would require CCP in the FE or moving these warnings to the middle-end,
which is something that no current developer thinks is a good idea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shawn at churchofgit dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-11-27
CC||dj at redhat dot com,
||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to DJ Delorie from comment #2)
> Once found, we scan backwards through the array looking for #pragmas that
> might affect the diagnostic. If we see one, that's what we use. If we see
> a DK_P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|#pragma diagnostic pop |#pragma diagnostic pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59304
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Manuel Ló
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59320
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59320
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #14)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> > Will -fsanitize=undefined catch these? If so, perhaps the message shown
> > before reporting a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59389
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doront at mellanox dot com
--- Comm
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
See the discussion in PR55252, specially comments #3 and #9.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 55252 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to philipp from comment #4)
> I have this or a very similar problem with debian amd64 4:4.8.2-1:
>
> main.c: In function ‘main’:
> main.c:1231:23: error: ‘rv’ may be used uninitialized in this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to philipp from comment #6)
> I'm trying to get a minimized file via creduce.
>
> In case you have an experienced guess please look at src/main.c from
>github.com:ClusterLabs/booth.git
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41624
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Volker Reichelt from comment #18)
> The first error message about exceeding the maximum template instantiation
> depth appears rather quickly. So maybe we could make the first error message
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Volker Reichelt from comment #18)
> > The first error message about exceeding the maximum template instantiation
> > depth appears rathe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59618
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-12-29
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
The difficulty is that g++ parses all the initializers first and then does the
conversions and by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16564
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53822
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> Created attachment 31564 [details]
> patch
>
> (mostly untested)
>
> This changes the message to:
> error: call of overloaded 'f(NT&)' {aka 'f(unsigned int&)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53822
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> Probably depends on cases. Sometimes it is good to have the explanation
> right next to the type, other times it takes up all the space and you can't
> even fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51149
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50306
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50306
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|spurious warning from |spurious warning from
|-Wconversion in C and C++ |-Wconversion in C and C++
||in conditional expressions
--- Comment #3 from Manuel
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2011-11-25
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-11-25
14:35:48 UTC ---
Confirmed. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51329
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-11-29
22:49:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Manu, could you look at this?
> This is quite an annoying regression for C++
After a couple of hours I gave up. I tried greping for "build.*finally",
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|gdr at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
||gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-12-01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50817
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-12-01
17:50:25 UTC ---
*** Bug 50817 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-12-02
16:59:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Still the behavior of warning for -Wno- changed appearantly. Joseph?
>
> The idea was th
||2011-12-03
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|preprocessor|c
Summary|pragma GCC diag ignored |Differences between setting
|then warning of Winline |Winline in command
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-12-03
11:04:48 UTC ---
This patch fixes the issue:
Index: gcc/opts.c
===
--- gcc/opts.c (revision 180166)
+++ gcc/opts.c (working cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-12-03
19:03:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> A candidate analysis and patch has been posted to
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00250.html for comments.
What I don't understand is h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51415
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51414
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48666
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51543
Bug #: 51543
Summary: terrible diagnostic for wrong type when expected class
or namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51545
Bug #: 51545
Summary: missing -Wparentheses diagnostic with compound
assignment used as condition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18248
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niva at niisi dot msk.ru
--- Commen
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-12-14
09:44:16 UTC ---
GCC 4.1.2 is ancient history. Please provide a patch against GCC 4.7.
Anyway, this is a well-known and old problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51556
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
|4.7.0
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed||2011-12-15
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|INVALID |
Ever Confirmed|0
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-01-05
15:32:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hi Jason. Looks like people are really unhappy with the -Wconversion warnings
> vs the t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.kanze at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51755
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-01-07
13:03:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thus by 'opposite' of 'complete' you mean that nothing should be *added* to
> the
> patch, instead something removed from it? Great. You see I meant c
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-01-17
16:12:55 UTC ---
GCC is built in stages. The first stage uses the system compiler, which may
have bugs or not handle special conversion type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51885
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-01-19
13:48:48 UTC ---
This is a more general issue with not warning for parenthesized expressions.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25733
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aravindvijayan224185 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-01-21
23:43:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Closing as fixed as 4.7 is stage 4 now.
Before closing this, all pending patches from 4.7 should be moved to the 4.8
meta-bug. Otherwise, they will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at mailed dot e4ward.com
--- C
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Mysha from comment #2)
> I don't know how many more unanswerable questions there are in GCC, but
> reactions suggest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85665
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #43 from Manuel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85861
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> > Does anyone know the history -Wconversion does not already turn on
> > sign-conversion warnings for C++ code?
This is how historically the C++ FE worked
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
All this discussion was already summarised (and more) here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#diagnostics_list
The bottom-line is that if you think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63327
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86134
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53075
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Kamlesh Kumar from comment #4)
> This patch resolves this.
No, it doesn't.
As the documentation says: -pedantic-errors is not equivalent to
@option{-Werror=pedantic}, since there are erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49973
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Lewis Hyatt from comment #13)
> I have one other question though. This quick attempt uses wchar.h, namely
> the mbrtowc() and wcwidth() functions. Firstly, it seems unfortunate to
> introd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #18)
> So the information would be there if one knew what to look for and how to
> use it.
The issue here is to either have VRP info in the FE (like Clang does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Dup?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 81276 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81276
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Keith Thompson from comment #7)
> I don't agree that this bug report is invalid. I see that the
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83592
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-12-26
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> cc1plus: error: this condition has identical branches
This suggests that GCC has somehow lost
||2017-12-26
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This is also a problem with macros:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-June/msg00608
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82541
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
As mentioned here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/684040/
This may need to wait until we have more precise location info for constants
and variable uses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
> > I'll defer to Joseph or any other C FE maintainers to make the final call.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47307
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81962
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
The try-catch creates:
# n_1 = PHI
# .MEM_2 = PHI <.MEM_4(3), .MEM_12(9)>
_15 = n_1;
and PHI is only handled with optimization.
**
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daffra.claudio at gmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Alex Henrie from comment #8)
> Why weren't Manuel's patches accepted?
I never properly submitted them. Feel free to adopt them and get them through
the process:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
If revision r124856 really caused this, the effect was not intentional.
I actually don't see anything in the patch that should change this aspect, so I
would not be surprised if it was caused by some o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> I actually don't see anything in the patch that should change this aspect,
> so I would not be surprised if it was caused by some other change.
I loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to krux from comment #6)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> > This is quite easy to implement.
>
> It's not as trivial as one might think.
> There's some copy-paste code to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Trass3r from comment #5)
> Wpadded only checks for input_location != BUILTINS_LOCATION currently
> (stor-layout.c).
> Maybe something like !DECL_ARTIFICIAL(rli->t) should be added there.
U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Trass3r from comment #7)
> Created attachment 46435 [details]
> cleanup
>
> The previous patch should also allow removing these hacks (untested).
> Though TYPE_ARTIFICIAL wasn't set in any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86829
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Original report is PR18501.
Comment #4 is PR54554.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 18501 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 69578, which changed state.
Bug 69578 Summary: -Wuninitialized not issuing warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69578
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lvenkatakumarchakka at gmail
dot c
801 - 900 of 2545 matches
Mail list logo
