https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87667
Roman Lebedev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87699
Bug ID: 87699
Summary: Implement CWG 1512
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49574
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> The description of what the warning is supposed to do is still incredibly
> vague and unspecified.
It's whatever you agreed to here:
(In reply to Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #21 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #20)
> That is still not what I said, so don't pretend I did please.
>
> Those are also not false positives: in all these cases, the program does
> in fact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87698
--- Comment #1 from Romain Geissler ---
Note: this is the source of the following error when linking with ld.lld 7.0:
ld.lld: error: corrupt input file: version definition index 0 for symbol
_libssh2_ntohu32 is out of bounds
>>> defined in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87698
Bug ID: 87698
Summary: [lto] Shared library build with -ffat-lto-objects
generates extra global absolute symbol relocations
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87697
Bug ID: 87697
Summary: Casting a base class to derived gives no warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87696
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Raw format still has that information. I think this is just an artifact of how
to display attachments and nothing is lost really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87696
Bug ID: 87696
Summary: gcc-patches mail archive does not show attachments
clearly
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
--- Comment #4 from Tiago Macarios ---
Related clang bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39363
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87633
--- Comment #10 from Yury Gribov ---
Let me know if issue persists, otherwise I'll close in couple of days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49574
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87633
--- Comment #9 from Yury Gribov ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Mon Oct 22 20:26:32 2018
New Revision: 265399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265399=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-22 Yury Gribov
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/87633
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87600
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Oct 22 20:23:39 2018
New Revision: 265398
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265398=gcc=rev
Log:
combine: Do not combine moves from hard registers
On most targets every
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Bug ID: 87695
Summary: Fehler beim Kompilieren für das Board Arduino/Genuino
Mega or Mega 2560.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87694
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Oct 22 20:01:56 2018
New Revision: 265397
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265397=gcc=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/87694
* g++.dg/concepts/memfun-err.C: Make it a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55254
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Should this go under the existing -Wconversion or a new flag? If the latter,
I'll make this block the new-warning meta-bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49574
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60440
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> Agree with Joseph, but it's a low priority on my list. It's kind of error
> recovery and as soon you fix the first warning you should not see the second
> one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87691
--- Comment #5 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
Thanks for the pointers.
> What happens if you make the attribute work for a MODE_INT union with a
> MODE_PARTIAL_INT first field that has MODE_SIZE of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87694
Bug ID: 87694
Summary: [9 regression] problem in g++.dg/concepts/memfun-err.C
starting with r263343
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #14 from coypu ---
Also, after these two patches, my own build of arm--netbsdelf is failing from
this:
configure: error: Pthreads are required to build libgomp
Looking at config.log, the error is actually:
configure:15118:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87627
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
I've spent some time looking at this again, and I couldn't find a way to
preserve REG_EQUIV notes (it's actually unclear what REG_EQUIV means
precisely).
What I think could help in simple cases like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87693
Bug ID: 87693
Summary: ICE in thread_around_empty_blocks, at
tree-ssa-threadedge.c:984
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53653
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50974
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #4 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87692
Bug ID: 87692
Summary: Reuse guard variable for multiple initializations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since r254694 only changed all -std modes to match -std=c++17 I bisected again
using -std=c++17 to find the change that really caused it, and it was indeed
r246301 which first removed that null check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85552
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tiagomacarios at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87660
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87680
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I believe this bug (and other existing dups) are about the C++ FE for array
initializers not emitting a loop for initialization but an initializer for each
element. It does that via
;; Function constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87691
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
What happens if you make the attribute work for a MODE_INT union with a
MODE_PARTIAL_INT first field that has MODE_SIZE of the union mode? Is there
a generic way to query SImode for PSImode as defined in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87680
--- Comment #4 from Corey Kosak ---
To my eye it doesn't seem to be related to exceptions or initializer lists, so
I don't think it's the same bug, but you all would know better than me.
When I look at the .s file I see a giant sequence of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87691
--- Comment #3 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Perhaps it is sufficient to check targetm.pass_by_reference, i.e. if the
struct/union with the given mode would be passed by reference, then it is ok to
give the struct/union a mode outside the MODE_INT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87691
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Created attachment 44880
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44880=edit
transparent_union.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87691
--- Comment #1 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
The issue is that the union is considered to have size of 32 bits (the
in-memory size of __int20), so unless mode_for_size as called by
compute_record_mode (both in stor-layout.c) is explicitly told to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87691
Bug ID: 87691
Summary: transparent_union attribute does not work with
MODE_PARTIAL_INT
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87038
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That is still not what I said, so don't pretend I did please.
Those are also not false positives: in all these cases, the program does
in fact skip some initialisation.
But, it seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87690
--- Comment #2 from Alex Bradbury ---
Better example demonstrating the problem exists for returns too:
$ cat foo.c
struct float_struct { float v; };
struct char_struct { char v; };
struct float_struct callee(float, char);
float caller(struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87690
--- Comment #1 from Alex Bradbury ---
It's clear from the example but I made a typo in the explanation due to a last
minute change in my example. char is unsigned, so the value in char_struct is
zero-extended as we expect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87690
Bug ID: 87690
Summary: [RISCV][ABI] GCC fails to sign-extend floats passed in
the lp64 ABI
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> > There's no such thing as 8.2.2, the next release will be 8.3.0, see
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87678
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is a much more general problem in combine. In general it only tries once,
and it only tries the fully simplified form, including known bit values etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #2 from Judicaël Grasset ---
I have tried with gfortran 8.2.0
I have compiled with:
gfortran -g main.f doesntwork_p8.f -Wall -Wextra -o exe
When running I get:
1 2 3 4 5 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Oct 22 14:03:22 2018
New Revision: 265392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265392=gcc=rev
Log:
rs6000: Handle print_operand_address for unexpected RTL (PR87598)
As the PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87598
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No problem, and thanks for finding and reporting the bug :-) This bug is over
25 years old...
I'm committing a fix for the rs6000 part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #51 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 13:54:23 2018
New Revision: 265390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265390=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-22 Steven Bosscher
Richard Biener
* bitmap.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> There's no such thing as 8.2.2, the next release will be 8.3.0, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
>
> Tom, is it time to backport this from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > > Taking look at
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > Taking look at
> > ../drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c file:
> >
> > The __builtin_popcount
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Confirmed that -fcheck-null fixes the miscompilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Bug ID: 87689
Summary: Memory corruption on Power 8
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #10 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Taking look at
> ../drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c file:
>
> The __builtin_popcount is generated from:
>
> static int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's no such thing as 8.2.2, the next release will be 8.3.0, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
Tom, is it time to backport this from trunk to gcc-7-branch and gcc-8-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #7 from Anton Barkovsky ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> That does seem to explain the difference. With GCC 8 GDB thinks that 'ptr'
> is passed in the register %rsi so the value in the register is the value of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Oct 22 13:09:33 2018
New Revision: 265388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265388=gcc=rev
Log:
Revert r263947.
2018-10-22 Martin Liska
PR tree-optimization/87686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86687
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at swarmer dot me
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87688
Bug ID: 87688
Summary: [9.0 regression] ACATS cb1010a cb1010d failure
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Before the conversion sequence that binds a reference you need to initialize
> the underlying temporary, which is a list-initialization sequence. You have
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Compiled with GCC 8 the debuginfo has:
DW_TAG_formal_parameter
DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x3cfb "ptr")
DW_AT_location(
[0x, 0x0010): DW_OP_reg4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87613
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's how I interpret it anyway, but I could be convinced otherwise. And maybe
the standard isn't clear enough here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Before the conversion sequence that binds a reference you need to initialize
the underlying temporary, which is a list-initialization sequence. You have
list-initialization sequence L1 from {1,2,3} to S1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87687
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87667
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the warning is correct. A scoped enumeration type is not subject to
integral promotion, so the argument is not promoted to int. When the body of
printf tries to read an int from the argument the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87684
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Thanks for the link. I have tried to google for "gcc Woverloaded-virtual" and
it did not show on the top, so I assumed that option is undocumented.
I will open new issue to add it to -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87687
Bug ID: 87687
Summary: s390x gcc 9 ICE in value_range::check
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87674
--- Comment #3 from Wenzel Jakob ---
Thanks -- this patch works for me.
With regards to the signature difference: I had already stumbled about the
(float *) vs (some value *) difference in some intrinsics.
In the best case differences cause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87676
--- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The template constructor allows s({1, 2, 3}) to mean s(S2{1,2,3}) which
> tries to use the deleted copy constructor.
Thanks, I think you're right about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87682
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87682
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 10:25:28 2018
New Revision: 265376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265376=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-22 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/87682
* mem-stats.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 10:22:48 2018
New Revision: 265375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265375=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87640
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
> >
> > Martin Liška changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87686
Bug ID: 87686
Summary: [9 regression] internal error in expand, at
tree-switch-conversion.c:916
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87495
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |REOPENED
--- Comment #7 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is that GDB sees a stack address for the int* member of the
unique_ptr, but it should be a pointer to the 'int' on the heap:
Breakpoint 1, A::A (this=0x7fffd2b7, ptr=std::unique_ptr =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87667
--- Comment #2 from Roman Lebedev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> It's a warning, why do you think either compiler is wrong?
Either it is incorrect to pass `enum class Enum : unsigned short`
when the format specifier is %hx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87685
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87671
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87667
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's a warning, why do you think either compiler is wrong?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87666
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christian_hoff at gmx dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87674
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, there are differences in intrinsic prototypes for many intrinsics between
GCC and ICC and it isn't that big a deal e.g. in this case, it is unspecified
if the intrinsics are implemented using macros or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87684
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #0)
> BTW, clang includes -Woverloaded-virtual in -Werror. Consider doing the same
> for gcc.
I suggest a separate bug for that.
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
