[Bug c++/115222] gcc ignores noexcept on fields' deconstructors in an union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115222 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug libstdc++/114645] std::chrono::current_zone ignores $TZ on Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114645 --- Comment #21 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20) > (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #18) > > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16) > > > ... incorrectly though? > > > > Given that you

[Bug libstdc++/114645] std::chrono::current_zone ignores $TZ on Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114645 --- Comment #18 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16) > ... incorrectly though? Given that you have expressed your view that *any* attempt at using TZ is inherently incorrect, I am not surprised that you view

[Bug libstdc++/114645] std::chrono::current_zone ignores $TZ on Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114645 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 --- Comment #20 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #19) Needless to say I still disagree, but I interpreted your comment #17 as suggesting this aspect of the discussion is neither necessary nor useful for this bug,

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 --- Comment #18 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #17) > The standrad does not define the conversion at the *type* level. > ... > The program is strictly conforming because it has no problem with type. The DRs I

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 --- Comment #16 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #15) > In the cases where there is no statement either way, the behavior is > undefined as a property of the translation unit (not just of the execution): > it

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 --- Comment #14 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11) > I think that simply failing to say whether a value of type X may be > converted to type Y is clearly enough for it at least to be unspecified > whether or

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 --- Comment #10 from Harald van Dijk --- Sorry, sent my earlier comment too soon. (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #8) > I believe conversions between function and object pointers are undefined as > a property of the translation unit

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 --- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #8) > "rejects", in the ISO C sense, only applies to errors and pedwarns in GCC; > not to warnings conditional on -pedantic (of which there are also some, but >

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 --- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #5) > The -pedantic documentation was updated to reflect reality - that the option > is about more than just when diagnostics are required by ISO C ("forbidden >

[Bug c/114526] ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug tree-optimization/114363] inconsistent optimization of pow(x,2)+pow(y,2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114363 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c++/114163] Calling member function of an incomplete type compiles in gcc and does not compile in clang and msvc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114163 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug middle-end/94083] inefficient soft-float x!=Inf code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083 --- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #6) > Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a > fixed patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but >

[Bug middle-end/94083] inefficient soft-float x!=Inf code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/114104] nodiscard not diagnosed on synthesized operator!=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114104 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug middle-end/113959] Optimize `__builtin_isnan(x) || __builtin_isinf(x)` to `__builtin_isfinite(x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113959 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c++/113760] [DR1693] gcc rejects valid empty-declaration in pedantic mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113760 --- Comment #13 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12) > Thank for your comment. In the end I went with > > -std=c++03 -pedantic-errors -Wextra-semi -> warnings > -std=c++03 -pedantic -Wextra-semi -> warnings

[Bug c++/113760] [DR1693] gcc rejects valid empty-declaration in pedantic mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113760 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c++/113830] GCC accepts invalid code when instantiating the local class inside a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113830 --- Comment #14 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Bo Wang from comment #13) > (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #12) > > (In reply to Bo Wang from comment #11) > > > I have read the working draft standard of C++20 > > >

[Bug c++/113830] GCC accepts invalid code when instantiating the local class inside a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113830 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug sanitizer/113628] -fsanitize=undefined failed to check a signed integer overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113628 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c++/113110] GCC rejects call to more specialized const char array version with string literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug tree-optimization/113049] Compiles to strlen even with -fno-builtin-strlen -fno-optimize-strlen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113049 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c/44179] warn about sizeof(char) and sizeof('x')

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44179 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug driver/13071] no easy way to exclude backward C++ headers from include path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071 --- Comment #10 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) > (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #8) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > > > Isn't doing the extern "C" around standard C++ headers

[Bug driver/13071] no easy way to exclude backward C++ headers from include path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/102201] Accepts invalid C++98 with nested class and sizeof of outer's non-static field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug libstdc++/58876] No non-virtual-dtor warning in std::unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c/101953] bug on the default cast operator from double to unsigned short

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101953 --- Comment #27 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #25) > The option to use to detect this is -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow (note: > I haven't tested if it detects this particular case). As per the

[Bug c/101953] bug on the default cast operator from double to unsigned short

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101953 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug preprocessor/101638] [11/12 Regression] ICE with -Wtraditional since r11-4953-g1d00f8c86324c40a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101638 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug preprocessor/101864] Segmentation fault with -Wtraditional + glibc 2.34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101864 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug preprocessor/101864] New: Segmentation fault with -Wtraditional + glibc 2.34

Component: preprocessor Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl Target Milestone: --- This testcase comes from glibc 2.34's sys/cdefs.h, so this is a problem showing up for any program that uses any of glibc's headers with -Wtraditional. $ cat

[Bug libgcc/101489] Documentation gives wrong signatures for libgcc float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101489 --- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk --- Ah, thanks for the pointer. Agreed that the signatures are correct based on that, but they are not exactly clear as they make it impossible to tell apart the xf and tf cases. Please consider this as an

[Bug libgcc/101489] New: Documentation gives wrong signatures for libgcc float128 routines

Priority: P3 Component: libgcc Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl Target Milestone: --- At <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Soft-float-library-routines.html>, all functions that take __float128 / _Fl

[Bug c++/100409] C++ FE elides pure throwing call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409 --- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > It has been consensus that throwing exceptions and const/pure are different > concepts that co-exist. See for example the recent discussion at >

[Bug c++/101376] New: Missing Wsuggest-attribute=const/Wsuggest-attribute=pure for throwing functions, wrong Wattributes for pure/const throwing functions

Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl Target Milestone: --- According to PR100409

[Bug c++/100409] C++ FE elides pure throwing call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug libstdc++/101234] Two tests require en_US.ISO-8859-15 but glibc no longer installs that by default.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101234 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug sanitizer/71458] ICE with -fsanitize=bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71458 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/100805] __int128 should be disabled for non-extended -std= options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100805 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c++/100731] [11/12 Regression] GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing includes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731 --- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk --- I take it that means there's no need for me to continue with what Richard asked me to do? At any rate, it looks like this fix won't be enough for GCC 12, but that's an issue with the environment, not GCC

[Bug c++/100731] [11/12 Regression] GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing includes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731 --- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5) > At this point a minimal fix is prefered - in principle the file > should be a valid source to any C++ 11 capable host compiler, not > just GCC. The

[Bug c++/100731] [11/12 Regression] GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing includes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731 --- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) Yes, including is enough to get the build to pass. My last point in comment #2, however, means that that leaves things in an inconsistent state and that the

[Bug bootstrap/100731] GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing includes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731 --- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk --- There are more missing or wrong includes here: looking at the code, it's also using functions from without including that, but that one gets implicitly included for me even on this old G++ so happens to

[Bug bootstrap/100731] GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing includes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731 --- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk --- The full configure line I used for reproducing this on glibc, btw: ../gcc-11.1.0/configure --prefix=$HOME/gcc-11.1.0-run CC=gcc-4.8.5 CXX=g++-4.8.5 --enable-languages=c,c++

[Bug bootstrap/100731] New: GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing includes

Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl Target Milestone: --- When building GCC 11 with GCC 4.8 on a platform without _GLIBCXX_USE_C99, the build fails. The result is: ../../gcc-11.1.0/c

[Bug c++/100700] -Wreturn-type has many false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c/100353] [11/12 Regression] Accepts invalid label

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100353 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c++/100309] [11 regression] false positive -Wstringop-overflow/stringop-overread/array-bounds on reinterpret_cast'd integers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100309 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl

[Bug c/99577] New: Non-constant (but actually constant) initializers referencing other constants no longer diagnosed as of GCC 8

Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl Target Milestone: --- GCC 8 and newer no longer issue an error for const int i = 0; const

[Bug c++/99362] invalid unused result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99362 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/97755] Explicit default constructor is called during copy-list-initialization with a warning only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97755 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c/97370] comedy of boolean errors for '!a & (b|c)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97370 --- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to eggert from comment #2) > That's so unlikely as to not be worth worrying about. See PR 7543 for the history of that warning. > And even if it were > more likely, the same argument would

[Bug c/97370] comedy of boolean errors for '!a & (b|c)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97370 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/97279] GCC ignores the operation definition of the template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97279 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/60304] Including disables -Wconversion-null in C++ 98 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304 --- Comment #31 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #30) > I'm curious why the preprocessed code in comment 28 doesn't warn, This was still bugging me, so I looked into it a little bit, and since I had trouble

[Bug c/96747] -Wshadow accepts included extern variable shadowing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96747 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug fortran/96486] get_environment_variable crashes for environment variables that are empty strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96486 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c/95157] Missing -Wtautological-compare warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95157 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c/95027] -fdiagnostics-urls generates wrong URLs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95027 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/95027] New: -fdiagnostics-urls generates wrong URLs

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl Target Milestone: --- $ cat test.c int f() { int i; return i; } $ LC_ALL=C gcc-10.1.0 -Wall -c test.c -fdiagnostics-urls=always 2>&1 | cat -v test.c: In function 'f': test.c:3:10: warning: 'i'

[Bug bootstrap/94998] GCC 10 won't configure for host=x86, build!=host, linker=bfd due to CET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998 --- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk --- Just confirming that that patch works for me, thanks.

[Bug target/94998] GCC 10 won't configure for host=x86, build!=host, linker=bfd due to CET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added Component|bootstrap |target --- Comment #1 from Harald van

[Bug bootstrap/94998] New: GCC 10 won't configure for host=x86, build!=host, linker=bfd due to CET

: normal Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl Target Milestone: --- Configuring libiberty fails when gcc is configured as ../gcc-10.1.0/configure --build=x86_64-forcecross-linux-gnu --host

[Bug target/94892] (x >> 31) + 1 not getting narrowed to compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94892 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/91187] Is it possible to make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant learn about extern "C"?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187 --- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > (In reply to Albert Astals Cid from comment #0) > > #define Z_NULL 0 > > N.B. this is actually a bug. Using Z_NULL where a null pointer is expected > might

[Bug tree-optimization/60540] Don't convert int to float when comparing int with float (double) constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540 --- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #10) > On this particular target, and on every target of any modern > relevance, (float)16777217 has well-defined behavior. That was exactly the point of my original

[Bug tree-optimization/60540] Don't convert int to float when comparing int with float (double) constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540 --- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #8) > So arguments about generality to non-Annex-F C > environments are not relevant to the topic here. The comment it was a reply to suggested (possibly

[Bug tree-optimization/60540] Don't convert int to float when comparing int with float (double) constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540 --- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #6) > > Only if the int is out of float's range. > > float's range is [-INF,INF] (endpoints included). There is no such thing as > "out of float's range". Floating

[Bug other/91879] DESTDIR support seems incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/91609] friend declaration not honoured

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91609 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug go/91621] New: libgo/mksysinfo.sh: please avoid test ==

Assignee: ian at airs dot com Reporter: harald at gigawatt dot nl CC: cmang at google dot com Target Milestone: --- r269424 introduced in libgo/mksysinfo.sh: if test "$statfs" == ""; then test == is non-POSIX and not supported in all she

[Bug c++/91418] Nested class of templated class cannot declare parent class friend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91418 --- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Darrell Wright from comment #4) > The weird part is, other than compilers don't agree, but the lookup finds it > if you put the template argument in The idea there seems to be that `class A;`

[Bug c++/91418] Nested class of templated class cannot declare parent class friend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91418 --- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk --- I believe GCC is correct here. [class.friend]p11 (http://eel.is/c++draft/class.friend#11) specifies that `friend class A;`, with an unqualified name, does not find the global scope class A, but makes a

[Bug driver/29931] following argv[0] symlink in process_command breaks symlinked-together toolchain

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931 --- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk --- Thinking about this a bit more, the logic should probably be: pick a file known to exist. libgcc.a could be a good candidate, but there could be better options. Look this up twice, once following

[Bug c++/91418] Nested class of templated class cannot declare parent class friend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91418 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/91314] Confusing warning refers to nonexistent comma operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91314 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/91187] Is it possible to make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant learn about extern "C"?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187 --- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Albert Astals Cid from comment #5) > (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #3) > > If the header files cannot be modified, the -isystem command-line option > > also causes included files

[Bug c++/91187] Is it possible to make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant learn about extern "C"?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91187 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/60869] ICE on throw after invalid definition of __cxa_throw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60869 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/60531] template function not resolved when comparing functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/60531] template function not resolved when comparing functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531 --- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk --- I posted a patch over a month ago; I am including the link here in case I end up forgetting to keep pinging.

[Bug c/90081] stdint constant macros evaluating to wrong type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081 --- Comment #10 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #9) Thanks, appreciate the explanation. I guess I'm less willing to trust that the interpretation that makes sense is the one that's intended, but I can

[Bug c/90081] stdint constant macros evaluating to wrong type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081 --- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7) > No, INT8_C(5) must expand to have type int, not int_least8_t, if > int_least8_t promotes to int. See 7.20.4#3, "The type of the expression > shall

[Bug c/90081] stdint constant macros evaluating to wrong type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081 --- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Guy Perfect from comment #5) > (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #4) > That was my line of thinking: supplying a cast in the macro. Keep in mind that inside #if expressions, there

[Bug c/90081] stdint constant macros evaluating to wrong type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90081 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/89793] Implicit conversion to std::string is ambiguous on GCC 8.2 but not GCC 7.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89793 --- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #1) > > This appears to work the same way in GCC 8 as it does in GCC 7, although it > > is possible that for

[Bug c++/89793] Implicit conversion to std::string is ambiguous on GCC 8.2 but not GCC 7.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89793 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/68138] "operator== is ambiguous" when comparing a tuple containing values with one containing refs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68138 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #32 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30) > For 8.x we do not want to warn, that will break people building with -Werror. > For 9.x, Jason said that perhaps we should warn instead of error for >

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #28 from Harald van Dijk --- Okay, the version without a warning was checked in. Should I have suggested the warning elsewhere?

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45910|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #24 from Harald van Dijk --- Created attachment 45910 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45910=edit gcc-8-pr89585-warn.patch (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21) > Created attachment 45904 [details] >

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #20 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19) > Created attachment 45903 [details] > gcc9-pr89585.patch Thanks. I'll test this on GCC 8, with trivial changes to accept asm volatile, when I get back home.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #16 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) Please stop with the unnecessary and unhelpful insults. This is the second time I've had to ask you that.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #13 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > This is wrong too since some of what -fstrict-overflow did was enabled at > -O1 (and -O2) before hand; just the option was added for GCC 4.2.0 and only >

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10) > 1) It wasn't defined behaviour before, so nothing changed in that regard. > Many changes changes behaviour on invalid code. Not all invalid code gets >

  1   2   3   >