https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78964
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78964
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
And the Linux kernel would not see these warnings anyway:
Makefile:
707 # These warnings generated too much noise in a regular build.
708 # Use make W=1 to enable them (see scripts/Makefile.build)
7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78964
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78964
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
>Why should it warn?
For all the same reasons as warning -Wunused-but-set-variable.
See the following code:
extern void g( int);
void f( int n)
{
int m = 0;
int m2 = 2;
for (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78964
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78964
Bug ID: 78964
Summary: gcc fails to detect pointless increment
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> The test output
>
> "4105" => 4
>
> indicates that on HP-UX the %hhd directive doesn't convert the int argument
> (4105) to unsigned char to end up with 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-01-01, at 4:12 PM, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Or were you saying that prior to HP-UX 11.31 printf didn't have %hhd at all
> and
> treated it as an ordinary string (or undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77674
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77674
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 1 23:31:53 2017
New Revision: 243997
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243997&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/77674
* symtab.c (symtab_node::binds_to_cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71880
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
Maybe the dump-tree gives a hint. Looking at the example
program t
character(:), dimension(:), allocatable, target :: c
character(:), dimension(:), pointer :: p
allocate(c(10),source='X')
p=>c
wri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78960
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Or were you saying that prior to HP-UX 11.31 printf didn't have %hhd at all and
treated it as an ordinary string (or undefined behavior)? If it's the latter
the test change alone would probably be sufficient.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Okay, thanks. I can add that but shouldn't the pass still correctly handle the
pre-C99 HP-UX behavior (i.e., when HAVE_C99_RUNTIME is not defined)? (In case
it's not apparent from the test, it fails because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
I think this is a c99 feature and we should add the following to test:
/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
It looks as if 11.31 supports the %hhd directive but not earlier versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> 1) use the %.508s directive instead of %s, or
> 2) verify the snprintf return value is less than 512.
Whoops. An off-by-one error. I meant to follow that by:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I'm not sure I do understand exactly what you mean. The warning in this
specific case is a false positive. There is no easy way for GCC to avoid it
without compromising the checker's efficacy in general. (T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78961
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78938
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 1 15:40:29 2017
New Revision: 243995
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243995&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/77484
* predict.def (PRED_CALL): Update hi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78963
Bug ID: 78963
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity in copies of small
unaligned data
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
26 matches
Mail list logo
