https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100432
--- Comment #2 from xicojovor at dropjar dot com ---
The minimal example is:
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
void* get_self_address(void)
{
return (void*)get_self_address;
}
compiled with -marm -Os -fPIC
working good (maybe not the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99692
Sergey Kaniskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #8 from Sergey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100217
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:445ce3cfb6832ec838caa10f2337c3bd00213517
commit r11-8360-g445ce3cfb6832ec838caa10f2337c3bd00213517
Author: Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100266
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jim Wilson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1fcf14f33e4f371aae8ae497ca58a760d53ca6d
commit r12-527-ge1fcf14f33e4f371aae8ae497ca58a760d53ca6d
Author: Christoph Muellner
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
Bug ID: 100441
Summary: [ICE] output_constant_pool_2, at varasm.c:3955
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100373
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Created attachment 50759 [details]
> updated patch
>
> Fixed missing setting of wi.stmt in lower_emutls_phi_arg
I regstrapped r12-248+ first patch (I added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440
Bug ID: 100440
Summary: allocated() gives True for unallocated variable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): For a SEH target,
always return the establisher frame for __builtin_frame_address
(0).
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20210505-1.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a way from keeping the compiler from knowing what the value of the
incoming pointer is to hide it behind an inline-asm which does nothing:
int __attribute__ ((nonnull)) isnull(char *ptr) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4a21a07125f73543ccc08fd96d4c41f37b6bd5d
commit r9-9514-gd4a21a07125f73543ccc08fd96d4c41f37b6bd5d
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100170
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |meissner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92fef3f29917407a31c58c1c06203e4fbe7d4319
commit r10-9803-g92fef3f29917407a31c58c1c06203e4fbe7d4319
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
EFAULT is always optional. POSIX is clear about that:
[EFAULT]
Bad address. The system detected an invalid address in attempting to use an
argument of a call. The reliable detection of this error cannot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 100430, which changed state.
Bug 100430 Summary: False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404
Philip Lorenz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
Bug ID: 100439
Summary: stack overflow running ubsan
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba013672f723f87f0c3b0c685dda5b3b2f1b3f3a
commit r11-8357-gba013672f723f87f0c3b0c685dda5b3b2f1b3f3a
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100438
--- Comment #1 from heinzisoft at web dot de ---
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/788403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100438
Bug ID: 100438
Summary: `_serialize` macro clashes with user defined
identifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99893
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91400
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0b4e09ab0102d9c0a5e6d603a080cb78600c40d
commit r12-524-ga0b4e09ab0102d9c0a5e6d603a080cb78600c40d
Author: Ivan Sorokin
Date: Mon May 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86387
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100437
Bug ID: 100437
Summary: libiberty: Support more characters for function clones
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #2)
> (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #1)
> > Oh, I see, the reason is that std::ranges::__detail::__is_integer_like
> > is set to false since gcc-11.
>
> This is just the implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
--- Comment #14 from Willy Tarreau ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #13)
> The patch was rejected so we'll have to live with a confusing warning.
sadly it's not the first one and I don't count the number of bugs I have
introduced in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 100325, which changed state.
Bug 100325 Summary: missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer
plus offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2254b3233b5bfa690e8c6e6fa923e4626a6a93d3
commit r12-523-g2254b3233b5bfa690e8c6e6fa923e4626a6a93d3
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
--- Comment #4 from Jens Maurer ---
Thanks.
My take-away from the discussion is that -Warray-bounds triggers when there
might be a code path with bad behavior. Whether such a code path is detected
depends very much on the details of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96745
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc_report_187375@mailfence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100421
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100423
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100429
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
Oh, I see, the reason is that std::ranges::__detail::__is_integer_like is
set to false since gcc-11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
Bug ID: 100436
Summary: std::views::iota(0, true) is well-formed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97903
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d9937da063e5847f45f7f1f7a02bed7dbc8fb2f6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #11 from Hannes Domani ---
> Your testcase does not compile with the C compiler:
>
> Compiling it with the C++ compiler works for me:
Sorry about the c/c++ confusion.
> Created attachment 50754 [details]
> Tentative fix
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100263
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06d75273ff7bb7af72ae83abef858c079245b602
commit r8-10952-g06d75273ff7bb7af72ae83abef858c079245b602
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50761
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50761=edit
gcc11-pr100342.patch
Untested fix. But what do I know about regcprop?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100263
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7bd91c7e059ee24bcf991d503bcd9856618a670
commit r9-9513-gd7bd91c7e059ee24bcf991d503bcd9856618a670
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100263
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3a6a7f0dcd3e0775c700b4a06320ac911a2c5b5
commit r10-9801-ga3a6a7f0dcd3e0775c700b4a06320ac911a2c5b5
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100263
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fcad2894215879b740dce74e72247b6efa326397
commit r11-8355-gfcad2894215879b740dce74e72247b6efa326397
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100263
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb283170e7a1f39bf533651418daf10ad18eccfc
commit r12-518-gbb283170e7a1f39bf533651418daf10ad18eccfc
Author: Stefan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dcb23f439f3cf5601fb8bf49889accd16f3b30a1
commit r11-8354-gdcb23f439f3cf5601fb8bf49889accd16f3b30a1
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dfd2c92f3f5d204619bd218aa72b162997690796
commit r12-517-gdfd2c92f3f5d204619bd218aa72b162997690796
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100417
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100435
Bug ID: 100435
Summary: oddity in hash table use in libcpp
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100432
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Does this affect other `-mtune=` values too? I am thinking about
> `--with-tune=ivybridge`.
It's accidental, so only testing can give the answer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100411
--- Comment #7 from Liu Hao ---
Does this affect other `-mtune=` values too? I am thinking about
`--with-tune=ivybridge`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100434
Bug ID: 100434
Summary: DSE fails to DSE aggregate LHS.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44462
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So we now (GCC 8+ at least) get
:
_1 = i_am_pure (5);
a_8 = _1 * 2;
i_am_pure (8);
return a_8;
after early DCE. This is because we now do FRE before the first DCE which
4.5 didn't have (4.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100418
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Stubbs ---
I found a couple of other places to put force_operand and the full case works
now.
Running more tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98218
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98375
Bug 98375 depends on bug 98218, which changed state.
Bug 98218 Summary: [TARGET_MMX_WITH_SSE] Miss vec_cmpmn/vcondmn expander for
64bit vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98218
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48335
Bug 48335 depends on bug 48358, which changed state.
Bug 48358 Summary: TREE_ADDRESSABLE overloading issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48358
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100274
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8b79cc939d6786293f654c42a2d1b0ab040de0e
commit r12-515-ga8b79cc939d6786293f654c42a2d1b0ab040de0e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98218
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3661f2d63fbc5fd30c24d22137691e16b0a0a17
commit r12-514-gf3661f2d63fbc5fd30c24d22137691e16b0a0a17
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90219
Timm Bäder changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100433
Bug ID: 100433
Summary: [modules] segfault with optimization greater than -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91598
--- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon ---
All intrinsics have been re-implemented, and I can see no asm version in
arm_neon.h as of r12-513.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87808
--- Comment #8 from leonard at lausen dot nl ---
Is there any blocker preventing the patch to be merged?
This bug can be easily reproduced by masquerading gcc binary with ccache
compiler cache. ln -s ccache /usr/local/bin/gcc See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100432
Bug ID: 100432
Summary: gcc arm compilation binary output is bigger with -Os
than -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
--- Comment #8 from Sam Varshavchik ---
If the warning is spurious, then changing vector.tcc won't, of course, keep it
from popping up elsewhere when the same sequence of events get triggered.
Here, it drew my attention to the missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100418
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is weird. I think normally during expansion all the needed clobbers are
added while expanding RTL, rather than waiting until the first pass that calls
recog (that is during the vregs pass I think).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100429
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0)
> It looks like libgcc DOES provide threading support for windows. However,
> _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS does not get defined for libstdc++, I guess it is
> another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100373
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50756|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100418
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> - emit_move_insn (rem, plus_constant (ptr_mode, rem, -blksize));
> + rtx rem_minus_blksize = plus_constant (ptr_mode, rem, -blksize);
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100428
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
The ptx code looks a lot like the cuda reproducer in PR99932 comment 4, so I'm
going to retest this once I get a driver where that one is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
--- Comment #2 from Jens Maurer ---
Why does the warning go away with -O3, then? If it's intentional, it should be
consistent once the optimization level is sufficient for the necessary static
analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100428
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100431
--- Comment #1 from Joey Dumont ---
Created attachment 50758
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50758=edit
Workaround for -Wno-format flag injected during build process.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100431
Bug ID: 100431
Summary: Fixes to enable compiling with -Werror=format-security
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100418
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
It seems to help if we save the values before the allocation in vector.tcc,
although I cannot promise it won't pessimize something else... And that's just
a workaround, not a solution.
@@ -766,13 +766,16 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
So, apart from the small missed PHI optimization, this is probably the common
issue that since operator new is replacable, we can't really assume that it
does not clobber anything, and that hurts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
---
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
