https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88259
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88259
>
> Tamar Christina changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90005
--- Comment #9 from Pawel ---
Hello Eric,
Thank You so much for this answer - in our case that turned out also to be
really useful.
We took the "-Werror=conditionally-supported" version - to trigger an error in
our custom variadic function - as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #55 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #54)
> Ok, after running genfixes there are still only two modified files in the
> whole tree of code, namely fixincludes/inclhack.def and
> fixincludes/fixincl.x.
> Is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90034
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #54 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Ok, after running genfixes there are still only two modified files in the whole
tree of code, namely fixincludes/inclhack.def and fixincludes/fixincl.x.
Is that as intended?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90026
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89794
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] valgrind |[8 Regression] valgrind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90025
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 10 07:28:05 2019
New Revision: 270247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/90025
* expr.c (store_expr): Set properly si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90010
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 10 07:27:20 2019
New Revision: 270246
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270246&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/90010
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (target_to_host): Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> No, and AFAIK the testcase has always worked on strict-alignment platforms.
To be more explicit:
typedef struct
{
short a;
long b;
short c;
short d;
} __attribute__ ((packed)) S;
S s;
S *p = &s;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Can be reproduced also on e.g. a Haswell machine:
-Ofast -march=haswell -g -funroll-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90027
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> for deja testcase: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c
> as the struct a_struct define with __attribute__ ((packed)), so the member
> variable b also not aligned with 4 bytes, is this case undefined behavio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Theoretically similar to PR87214, but the patch was backported and this issues
is present in 8.3.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #53 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Erik Schnetter from comment #46)
> The patch does not include the generated files. You need to run "genfixes"
> in the "fixincludes" directory after applying the patch.
This I don't understand:
101 - 119 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
