https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36566
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
I was thinking that
struct __attribute__((packed)) A { int i; };
should be handled like
typedef int int_unaligned __attribute__((aligned(1)));
struct A { int_unaligned i; };
but it appears that for the aligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77659
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] internal |[5/6 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Feb 12 03:34:11 2017
New Revision: 245373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245373=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/78908 - template ops and bitfields
* tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77659
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Feb 12 03:31:02 2017
New Revision: 245372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245372=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/77659 - ICE with new and C++14 aggregate NSDMI
* init.c
jbe .L18
.L14:
sub rsp, 8
callabort
.L18:
mov edi, edi
mov rdi, QWORD PTR CSWTCH.2[0+rdi*8]
testrdi, rdi
je .L14
jmp puts
CSWTCH.2:
.quad .LC0
.quad .LC1
.quad .LC2
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79462
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
If the patch fixes the problem, it's OK. But please add a comment where the
line is removed as a hint of what's going on there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #9 from Eric Fiselier ---
I think it would be nice to be able to dispatch differently depending on being
called at compile time or runtime. However the ability to dispatch on that
condition doesn't have to be usable in "if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #8 from gnzlbg ---
Eric your concerns and suggestions make sense. Changing the signature of the
functions using something like __ctfe__ and probably anything that would use
those sounds like a major ABI breaking change though. I do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79462
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Feb 11 21:49:51 2017
New Revision: 245366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245366=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ipa/79224
* params.def (inline-min-speedup) Change from 10 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79471
Bug ID: 79471
Summary: valgrind error for
gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-fnargs.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79467
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79467
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Feb 11 21:08:11 2017
New Revision: 245363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245363=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/79467 use lvalues in is_callable check
PR libstdc++/79467
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79468
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79468
Bug ID: 79468
Summary: Clarify createaccount.cgi
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79467
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79467
Bug ID: 79467
Summary: [7 Regression] incorrect static assertion in
shared_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79466
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++14 changed the rules slightly about paranthesises which is why you are
seeing the difference here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #50 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 11 18:38:11 2017
New Revision: 245361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245361=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/79341
* g++.dg/asan/deep-stack-uaf-1.C: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #49 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the other side, we don't turn -fno-omit-frame-pointer or
-mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer for -fsanitize=address on other targets either,
perhaps this is just a documentation issue. I'll add -mbackchain to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #48 from Ulrich Weigand ---
s390(x) has -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on by default anyway, and .eh_frame
based DWARF unwinding is the only way to create stack backtraces that always
works.
However, I understood that asan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Feb 11 17:56:02 2017
New Revision: 245359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245359=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-ssa/56727
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr56727.c: New testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77790
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
Summary|[5/6/7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77790
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Feb 11 17:29:45 2017
New Revision: 245358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245358=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/77790 - ICE with auto function in C++11 mode
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77659
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Trying to combine the load+add+store, combine is trying insns like
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
(set (mem:SI (reg/v/f:SI 90 [ x ]) [1 *x_5(D)+0 S4 A32])
(plus:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Feb 11 16:11:57 2017
New Revision: 245357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245357=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ipa/79224
* ipa-inline-analysis.c (get_minimal_bb): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79466
Bug ID: 79466
Summary: strange varargs warnings on superflous paranthesises
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #29 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Right. I think the test is xfailed, but I don't think the issue has been
resolved. It requires some rethinking of how the combiner works IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79465
Bug ID: 79465
Summary: infinite #include cycle is not detected
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79460
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Don't we still XFAIL the gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c test?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #58 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > --- Comment #56 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> > So, is this resolved now?
>
> The bootstrap failures are AFAIK, but perhaps we should keep it open for
> the fixinclude fix backports discovered?
Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #27 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT this PR seems fixed. Can I close it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71017
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79464
Bug ID: 79464
Summary: new ice in ipa_modify_formal_ parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79463
Bug ID: 79463
Summary: ice for -g with ./g++.dg/cpp1y/pr79435.C
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems clang doesn't default to -mbackchain for -fsanitize=address, they just
force it on when testing:
if config.target_arch == 's390x':
clang_asan_static_cflags.append("-mbackchain")
So, if we just want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or shall we use -mbackchain for -fsanitize=address by default and tweak the
unwinding code sanitizer_common/sanitizer_stacktrace.{cc,h} to use the
backchain?
AFAIK libsanitizer uses the .eh_frame unwinding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
deep-stack-uaf*.C failure is presumably because the fast unwind (one that
doesn't use .eh_frame unwind info) isn't working properly.
But I'm afraid I don't know enough about s390{,x} to debug that.
E.g. on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79284
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79454
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 11 08:15:30 2017
New Revision: 245354
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245354=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79454
* internal-fn.c (expand_vector_ubsan_overflow):
48 matches
Mail list logo
