https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96917
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101438
Andrey Vihrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032
--- Comment #15 from Andrey Vihrov ---
*** Bug 101438 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101438
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Looks like this is a duplicate of bug 105032 (or vice versa).
Both samples from this bug succeed for me with GCC 11.3 and GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Sorry, even
std::regex a(".");
alone is enough to trigger the warnings.
: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following sample:
#include
int main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101438
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Created attachment 51152
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51152&action=edit
Alternative testcase using __builtin_alloca()
Thanks.
This code is the result of minimization. It seems that
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Compiling this C source:
int main(void)
{
register long long rax __asm__
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider
#include
int main()
{
int x = 5;
[&]() {
decltype(
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Assuming that there indeed is no object at address 0x406310, wouldn't 6.5.6.8
from the C11 standard apply?
> [...] If both the pointer operand and the result point to elements of the same
> array object, or
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/config/i386/i386-builtin.def;h=fa123788a8e49a023ea17c69f7cd56ecd3acca47#l1105
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94983
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Another sample, probably caused by the same underlying issue:
struct T
{
char a[3];
};
void bar()
{
T t{"x"}; // OK
T{"x"}; // OK
new T{"x"}; // err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94983
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Thanks for the helpful link.
To clarify, list initialization in a new-expression context behaves differently
from other cases such as "S{};" and "S s{};" (be their behavior correct or
incorrect).
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following C++ sample:
struct S
{
S() = delete;
};
void foo
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Consider the following code (a common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93495
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Yes, I confirmed the same issue for GNU ld and as, but didn't report that yet.
: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Steps to reproduce:
export LANG="en_US.UTF-8"
touch test.c
printf '\xef\xbb\xbftest.c' > cmd
gcc -c @cmd
Output:
gcc: error:
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the following preprocessed source:
# 1 "foo.h" 3
struct A
{
virtual void f();
};
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following C++11 sample:
namespace
{
extern int x;
static int x = 0;
}
Compiling
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following C++ sample:
static int x;
int main()
{
int x = 1;
{
extern int x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646
Andrey Vihrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling and running the following code:
#include
extern const char c = 42;
int main()
{
std
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling this source:
int main()
{
if (({ goto test; test: 1; }));
}
with "g++ -Wall test.cpp -o test" gives:
test.cpp: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Thanks for your reply. You have a point: using -fwhole-program introduces more
effects than needed, as evidenced by this bug report, so an anonymous namespace
is safer and cleaner.
In any case, in this bug r
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66279
Andrey Vihrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35620|0 |1
is obsolete|
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35620&action=edit
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Vihrov ---
I compiled the example program without and with -fwhole-program to assembly
code, and here are the differences: http://pastie.org/9859649
As I understand, normally the ".weak" directive ensures that there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Thanks for a fast reply!
My use case for these two (amongst several others) options together is
competitive programming, in which a contestant is required a write a
one-source-file solution, test it locally
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Created attachment 34383
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34383&action=edit
Preprocessed source
Compiling the following program:
#define _GLIBCX
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
Created attachment 30694
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30694&action=edit
Preprocessed source
Compiling and running the following code with "g++ -O2 -Wall -Wext
32 matches
Mail list logo
