https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38925
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-07-29
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that gcc only prints the same warnings you noticed.
||2017-07-29
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirming that this happens; I had it happen to me in something else with
#line directives but I assumed I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #8 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69505
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-07-29
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> GCC doesn't warn for:
>
> const char s[
||2017-07-29
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that the testcase aborts on me. (btw should we have a cilkplus
keyword for bugs on this Bugzilla?)
||2017-07-29
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that it errors out:
$ /usr/local/bin/gcc -c -fcilkplus 63398.c
63398.c: In function ‘f’:
63398.c
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-07-28
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that gcc doesn't warn, although my
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager
||2017-07-28
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ralph Corderoy from comment #5)
> The examples clearly show the problem and it bites me h
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Host|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin
Build|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Removing the "14" from host/target/build since I
||2017-07-28
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mike Herrick from comment #0)
> There seems to be an issue with earlyclobbers and multi
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail||
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jeroen Demeyer from comment #5)
> Created attachment 16428 [details]
> Unified te
||2017-07-28
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Results from testing on i386-apple-darwin9.8.0 with gcc8:
$ /usr/local/bin/gcc -c -fPIC -mcmodel
||2017-07-29
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Current gcc output:
$ /usr/local/bin/gcc -c -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -O3 70924.c
70924.c
||2017-07-29
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed (that the testcase aborts when run)
||2017-07-30
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #0)
> Compiling the program:
>
> int main()
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80130
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-07-31
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that gcc ICEs, although is 'c' really the right component?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-07-30
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed. Note that the original testcase now prints an additional
-Wformat-overflow warning:
$ /usr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71996
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-07-31
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed.
||2017-07-31
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Was the testcase truncated or something? I don't see how it's supposed to show
anything about malloc
||2017-07-31
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that gcc warns.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Pierre Ossman from comment #11)
> Created attachment 30419 [details]
> main.c
>
> We've also been hitting this, so here is a
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The tmp files are useless - we need preprocessed source instead.
Reporter never provided the preproces
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Patrick from comment #6)
> Created attachment 29071 [details]
> the preprocessed source when gcc fails to compile mame
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80437
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
> > Is this enough for you to work with?
>
> No, please follo
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to philippe.waroquiers from comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This looks like PR53214 - unable to verify without a testcase thou
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> A self-contained (minimized) reproducer is always a requirement.
Reproducer not provided in time; closing
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Not all optimizations are controlled directly by a flag.
> > Only optimizations that have a fla
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> Without a testcase there's nothing to do.
...besides close it, that is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65957
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56412
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 30065, which changed state.
Bug 30065 Summary: Could use indexed addressing to reduce const costs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
What|Removed |Added
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #3)
> Is there a test case for this PR?
Reporter never provided a test case; closing
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> Is the problem fixed? Without feedback I'll assume yes.
No feedback so we can assume yes.
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mark H Weaver from comment #11)
> FYI, there's now a suggested fix for bug #66917. It would be interesting to
> know whether it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #10)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> &
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> Is this still of interest?
Guess not.
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> There isn't nearly enough information here to know what's happening, please
> see https://gcc.gnu.or
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to goeland86 from comment #2)
> Apologies. I will upload the proper files as soon as possible - at the
> moment I have gentoo installing the
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #2)
> Created attachment 24559 [details]
> preprocessed test case
>
> Several files in gsoc2010-fftw-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49284
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57821
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.1
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #3)
> > > Is there a test case for this PR?
> >
> > Reporter never
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Any opinion about keeping this four-year old PR opened?
My opinion is to close it, given that i
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> This PR is related to pr46182. While I agree that it would be nice to have
> run time errors for invalid use of unallocated variables/not associated
>
||2017-08-04
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirming as an enhancement. Pedro Alves also
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44882
> >
> &
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Matha Goram from comment #2)
> Created attachment 36600 [details]
> Pre-processed source file
>
> Per request to attach pre-processed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57426
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53404
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68229
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63545
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #24 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #23)
> The test case compiles successfully with 6.0 (albeit with warnings). Since
> the originally reported p
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Todd Allen from comment #4)
> It appears to have been fixed in gcc-4.9.0 by Sterling Augustine,
> 2013-07-25, with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81795
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Donezo.
Thanks for the quick fix!
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Roman Kononov from comment #0
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-08-15
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
g++'s message is now:
$ /usr/local/bin/g++ -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81837
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 81838 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 81837 ***
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Guessing you probably got gateway errors when submitting to Bugzilla or
something?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 81837 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81837
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 81839 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||2017-08-15
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #0)
>
Um... bug report missing? Would help to h
||2017-08-10
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81795
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> You're right, do you want to send a patch or should I handle it?
It'd probably be better if you handled it; my hard drive that has the ssh keys
that let me
||2017-08-12
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed.
||2017-08-11
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
runs fine for me with GCC 8 on i386-apple-darwin9.8.0 (32-bit), but segfaults
on me when I add -m64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-08-11
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed. Modifying target since it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #33 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #32)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #30)
> > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #29)
> > > I happened to just get Cygwin installed and running on my
||2017-08-12
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed.
||2017-08-11
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|g++ segfault when creating |g++ segfault in
|type alias |tsubst_copy_and_build when
||creating
|
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-08-11
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81732
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-08-11
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed.
||2017-08-11
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ben Longbons from comment #0)
> This worked with 4.7, but fails with 4.8 through
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed.
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.0.2
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4, 4.3.4
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed, the g++ diagnostic is now:
$ /usr/local/bin/g++ -c -Wall -Wextra -pedantic 44520.cc
44520.cc
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed, text in the current docs is still pretty much the same as it was in
4.4.3.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed, g++ accepts it with neither
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Sounds more like ggc_collect is now always doing the
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Could you please:
- attach the preprocessed source that triggers this bug
- try again with a version
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
I can't reproduce with current gcc on i386
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed that gcc rejects the former and accepts the latter, although the
former should probably still get
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
How are you getting the byte values? I compiled the testcase but I don't know
what I'm supposed
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirming as an enhancement.
||2017-08-14
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirming as an enhancement, although maybe
1 - 100 of 3636 matches
Mail list logo
