https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86198
--- Comment #4 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Jun 21 05:42:53 2018
New Revision: 261832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261832=gcc=rev
Log:
libbacktrace/
2018-06-21 Denis Khalikov
PR other/86198
Working on iterator == operator I noticed that a comparison in
_Safe_iterator was inconsistent.
* include/debug/debug.h
(_Safe_iterator<>(const _Safe_iterator<_MutableIterator,>& __x)):
Compare __x base iterator with a default initialized iterator of the
same type.
Tested under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86258
Bug ID: 86258
Summary: Program compiled with fPIC crashes while stepping over
thread-local variable GDB
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86257
Bug ID: 86257
Summary: Program compiled with fPIC crashes while stepping over
thread-local variable GDB
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86256
Bug ID: 86256
Summary: Lambda will not add ref count for class intelligent
pointer member when capture 'this' or & as argument
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86255
Bug ID: 86255
Summary: addition of default argument on redeclaration makes
this constructor a default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86254
Bug ID: 86254
Summary: g++ rejects legal code?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86253
Bug ID: 86253
Summary: N3639 array of runtime bound
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
Bug ID: 86252
Summary: Abstract class in function return type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86251
Bug ID: 86251
Summary: legal or illegal code?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86250
Bug ID: 86250
Summary: addition of default argument on redeclaration makes
this constructor a default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86249
Bug ID: 86249
Summary: declaration conflicts with target of using declaration
already in scope
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:25:36AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> This code disables the automatic multilib creation unless you use the
> --with-advance-toolchain= option and the Advance Toolchain directoy has
> been modified to have the lib64/ieee128 and/or lib64/ibm128 directories for
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86238
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Simplified further:
struct B { ~B() {} };
struct C : private virtual B {};
struct D : C {} d;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86238
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Segher:
I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with the patch.
I have retested it and it looks good.
Please let me know if the patch looks OK for GCC mainline.
Carl Love
>From
On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 10:22 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> David,
>
> Have you been able to reproduce the jit test failures below on
> tor? Is there some information I can get you from my builds to
> help you debug it?
Thanks for pointing it out. I've started seeing it on my machine.
They
All/most of the jit.dg testcases are segfaulting on cleanup of
the 2nd in-process iteration:
PATH=.:$PATH LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. LIBRARY_PATH=. \
gdb --args \
testsuite/jit/test-factorial.c.exe
Starting program:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No problem, now that Richard raised it on the core reflector we should see the
implementation divergence fixed, which is a Good Thing.
Snapshot gcc-6-20180620 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20180620/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86213
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 06/20/2018 11:59 PM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> Now it follows the formula contained in
> the "CUDA Occupancy Calculator" spreadsheet that's distributed with CUDA.
Any reason we're not using the cuda runtime functions to get the
occupancy (see PR85590 - [nvptx, libgomp, openacc] Use cuda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
--- Comment #18 from David Blaikie ---
Thanks - looks like this got hashed out on the C++ reflector in favor of this
being invalid. The Clang bug has been re-opened to work on the fix there.
Thanks! Sorry for the noise.
At present, the nvptx libgomp plugin does not take into account the
amount of shared resources on GPUs (mostly shared-memory are register
usage) when selecting the default num_gangs and num_workers. In certain
situations, an OpenACC offloaded function can fail to launch if the GPU
does not have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86213
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Jun 20 21:57:44 2018
New Revision: 261826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261826=gcc=rev
Log:
libgcc/:
PR libgcc/86213
* generic-morestack.c
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Than McIntosh wrote:
>>
>> Please find below a patch to fix PR 86213. This changes the runtime
>> code for -fsplit-stack to move a couple of calls (getenv, etc) from
>> the routine called by __morestack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71765
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57005
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last
On 06/20/2018 03:14 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
Consider the test-case from the patch. When compiled with "-O2 -fno-dce
-fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-dereference -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-vrp" and
run, we get:
...
$ ./a.out
Floating point exception
...
The problem is introduced by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85859
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries
Hi,
Consider the test-case from the patch. When compiled with "-O2 -fno-dce
-fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-dereference -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-vrp" and
run, we get:
...
$ ./a.out
Floating point exception
...
The problem is introduced by -ftree-tail-merge (enabled by -O2), so it
executes fine
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Paul Menzel <
> pmenzel+gcc.gnu@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> > Dear GCC folks,
> >
> >
> > Some scientists in our organization still want to use the Intel compiler,
> > as they say, it produces faster
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86213
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Jun 20 21:11:23 2018
New Revision: 261823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261823=gcc=rev
Log:
libgcc/:
PR libgcc/86213
* generic-morestack.c
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Than McIntosh wrote:
>
> Please find below a patch to fix PR 86213. This changes the runtime
> code for -fsplit-stack to move a couple of calls (getenv, etc) from
> the routine called by __morestack to a function called on startup,
> so as to avoid having the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86248
--- Comment #1 from Bill Long ---
Possibly related to 44265.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86248
Bug ID: 86248
Summary: LEN_TRIM in specification expression causes link
failure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86246
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86184
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86093
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 20 20:40:33 2018
New Revision: 261820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261820=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-06-15 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86108
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 20 20:41:12 2018
New Revision: 261821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261821=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-06-16 Jakub Jelinek
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86247
Bug ID: 86247
Summary: warning on alloca within a loop overly restrictive for
constant loops
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86246
Bug ID: 86246
Summary: Template dispatching error inside a template function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Experience Cannes in style on a Corporate Yacht Charter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70966
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70966
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 20 19:34:53 2018
New Revision: 261818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261818=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/70966 make pmr::new_delete_resource() immortal
Construct the
Construct the program-wide resource objects using placement new. This
means they have dynamic storage duration and won't be destroyed during
termination.
PR libstdc++/70966
* include/experimental/memory_resource (__resource_adaptor_imp): Add
static assertions to enforce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jun 20 19:22:53 2018
New Revision: 261817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261817=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/85634] Fix tsubst ICE
On 06/20/2018 10:33 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
This patch fixes 85634, an ice during tsubst where we encounter an
unmarked lookup. Such lookups could be mutated by declarations added
after the template definition containing them. That would be bad.
This patch is needed on trunk, to handle
Hi all,
Please find below a patch to fix PR 86213. This changes the runtime
code for -fsplit-stack to move a couple of calls (getenv, etc) from
the routine called by __morestack to a function called on startup,
so as to avoid having the calls clobber SSE input regs.
Thanks, Than
---
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:47:45AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Yeah, I guess this is Clang, but is it a legal interpretation for Clang?
>
> In file included from gnu-pw-mgr.c:24:
>
> In file included from ./fwd.h:288:
>
> *./seed.c:178:43: **warning: **sizeof on pointer operation will return
OK. My mistake. "Nevermind" -- side effect of another change.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM Bruce Korb wrote:
> Yeah, I guess this is Clang, but is it a legal interpretation for Clang?
>
> In file included from gnu-pw-mgr.c:24:
>
> In file included from ./fwd.h:288:
>
> *./seed.c:178:43:
Yeah, I guess this is Clang, but is it a legal interpretation for Clang?
In file included from gnu-pw-mgr.c:24:
In file included from ./fwd.h:288:
*./seed.c:178:43: **warning: **sizeof on pointer operation will return size
of 'const char *' instead of 'const char [2042]'*
*
Thanks. I guess clang forked after the clever NUL-in-format-string was
added, but before my fix. :( I'll add -Wno-format if I can identify clang
over GCC.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:32 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:17:50AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> > Years and years ago,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:17:50AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Years and years ago, I went to a mess of trouble to implement this
> specialized warning so I would not have to see it anymore. I use a code
> generator that puts constant strings into one huge buffer with all the
> contained strings
I'm running into an ICE in the GIMPLE phase, for gcc.c-torture/compile/386.c,
on pdp11 -mint32. That's an oddball where int is 32 bits (due to the flag) but
Pmode is 16 bits (HImode).
The ICE message is:
../../gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/386.c: In function ‘main’:
Years and years ago, I went to a mess of trouble to implement this
specialized warning so I would not have to see it anymore. I use a code
generator that puts constant strings into one huge buffer with all the
contained strings NUL separated. Today, I was trying to build on OS/X:
libtool:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 85918, which changed state.
Bug 85918 Summary: Conversions to/from [unsigned] long long are not vectorized
for AVX512DQ target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85918
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hi,
Please find the diff file for dumping tree type stats attached here with.
example:
$ ../stage1-build/gcc/lto1 test_hello.o -fdump-lto-tree-type-stats
Reading object files: test_hello.o
integer_type3
pointer_type3
array_type1
function_type4
I have pushed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86226
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86225
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 06/20/2018 10:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:59:29AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> If it means anything, we have a significant async change that removes
>> the async_refcount field in that struct.
>
> Wasn't async_refcount removed 2 years ago?
You're right. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53109
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:59:29AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > I'm not entirely happy about this, it grows the structure for not just
> > OpenACC, but also OpenMP which will never use it. Are there any fields
> > not used by OpenACC? E.g. is link_key used?
> > Or could the dynamic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
On 06/20/2018 09:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:01:20AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> >From 53ee03231c5e6e4747b4ef01335079a2d4a98480 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Cesar Philippidis
>> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:33:04 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH 7/7] runtime changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jun 20 16:54:44 2018
New Revision: 261814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261814=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR c++/85634] Fix tsubst ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
And here's the patch for gcc-8.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
2018-06-20 Nathan Sidwell
PR c++/85634 - tsubst ICE on unmarked lookup
* parser.c (cp_parser_primary_expression): Keep lookup in template.
PR c++/85634 - tsubst ICE on unmarked lookup
* g++.dg/lookup/pr85634.C: New.
Index:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:01:20AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch implements the OpenACC 2.5 data clause semantics in libgomp.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
> 2018-06-19 Chung-Lin Tang
> Thomas Schwinge
> Cesar Philippidis
>
> libgomp/
> * libgomp.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86225
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a dup of an existing bug.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:00:37AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch implements the OpenACC 2.5 data clause semantics in the
> middle end.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
> Cesar
> 2018-06-19 Chung-Lin Tang
> Thomas Schwinge
> Cesar Philippidis
>
>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:59:57AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch implements the OpenACC 2.5 data clause semantics in the
> Fortran FE.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
> Cesar
> 2018-06-19 Chung-Lin Tang
> Thomas Schwinge
> Cesar Philippidis
>
>
Committed to CVS.
Index: htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 changes.html
--- htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html 8 Jun 2018 15:28:59 - 1.8
+++
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:58:26AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch implements the OpenACC 2.5 data clause semantics in the C++ FE.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
> Cesar
> 2018-06-19 Chung-Lin Tang
> Thomas Schwinge
> Cesar Philippidis
>
> gcc/cp/
>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:59:09AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> This patch implements the OpenACC 2.5 data clause semantics in the C FE.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
> Cesar
> 2018-06-19 Chung-Lin Tang
> Thomas Schwinge
> Cesar Philippidis
>
> gcc/c/
> *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86210
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Regression fixed for 8.2+ so far by the above changes, for the enhancement see
above comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86210
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 20 16:08:14 2018
New Revision: 261812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261812=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86210
* c-common.c (check_nonnull_arg): Use fold_for_warn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86210
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 20 16:07:21 2018
New Revision: 261811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261811=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86210
* c-common.c (check_nonnull_arg): Use fold_for_warn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86245
Bug ID: 86245
Summary: _GLIBCXX_LONG_DOUBLE_COMPAT GLIBCXX_3.4.21 issues
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86243
--- Comment #2 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #0)
> > Note that I am not even setting -Wall or -Wextra.
>
> As documented, -Wattributes is enabled by
On 18/06/18 19:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This issue hasn't been voted into the working draft yet, but it's been
approved by LWG and is obviously correct.
* include/std/chrono (duration, operator*, operator/, operator%): Use
const-qualified type as source type in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86210
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
WIP patch to warn also during inlining, with the intent to handle e.g.
int *p = 0;
declared_and_defined(p);
for both C/C++. Unfortunately if it is inlined during early inlining, we still
don't warn,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86240
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86240
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jun 20 15:46:02 2018
New Revision: 261809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261809=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86240
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression):
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the below implements a couple of independent ideas. First, adds a const
> cp_decl_specifier_seq * parameter, similarly to grokvardecl: this way the
> function has available locations[ds_inline], locations[ds_constexpr],
>
OK.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> The recent change introducing ABSU_EXPR neglected to also handle this code
> in cxx_eval_constant_expression so this patch puts it there. Also two
> other spots for good measure. It's possible we'll find out that we need
> to fix
The recent change introducing ABSU_EXPR neglected to also handle this code
in cxx_eval_constant_expression so this patch puts it there. Also two
other spots for good measure. It's possible we'll find out that we need
to fix other spots too.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch fixes a regression caused by C++ delayed folding, when
> check_nonnull_arg is called, the arguments aren't folded yet and so unlike
> GCC 4.8 and earlier we don't report -Wnonnull warning unless the argument is
> literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86244
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86244
Bug ID: 86244
Summary: misleading use of "may be too large" in
-Walloca-larger-than and -Wvla-larger-than warnings
involving ranges
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 14:51 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Main part where I still need to write ChangeLog file and
> gcc.sh needs to be moved to bash-completions project.
>
> Martin
As before, I'm not an official reviewer for it, but it touches code
that I wrote, so here goes.
Overall looks good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85859
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 44305
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44305=edit
Tentative patch
On 06/20/2018 09:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:15:08AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> Thank you for the trust. I tried to split it into multiple patches, but
>>> it wasn't readable enough.
>> Yea, it can be painful to find the right way to structure a series. In
>> fact,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86243
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #0)
> Note that I am not even setting -Wall or -Wextra.
As documented, -Wattributes is enabled by default and you need to use
-Wno-attributes to disable it.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:15:08AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Thank you for the trust. I tried to split it into multiple patches, but
> > it wasn't readable enough.
> Yea, it can be painful to find the right way to structure a series. In
> fact, I'm going to be faced with that shortly for a
On 06/20/2018 05:25 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/05/2018 01:15 AM, marxin wrote:
>>>
>>> + The definition of "much bigger" depends on whether we are
>>> + optimizing for size or for speed. If the former, the maximum
>>> +
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
