https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77465
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115077
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> There's nothing fake about them, they are definitely inline functions as far
> as the language rules. But in some cases we don't want the compiler to use
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71482
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> > Another reason this warning might be wanted: name mangling and demangling of
> > global constructors has been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> Reading the discussion again, I don't think we have a way to make inline
> keyword ignored by inliner. We can make not_really_inline attribute (better
> name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101166
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
The FSFE's REUSE tool could be helpful for this:
https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99475
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71482
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #78 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #77)
> Apparently fixing the message in GCC will produce maintenance overhead [1].
> If that's not very important to you, I'd rather leave this message as is.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79646
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Abe from comment #4)
> Anybody who wants to chime in, but especially Eric Gallager: please let me
> know whether or not my patch looks good enough for submission to the
> gcc-patches mailing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71760
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88371
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114588
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71482
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54254
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> *** Bug 90039 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Symbol for this one was _GLOBAL__sub_I__Z11print_tracev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59518
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54254
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> *** Bug 56755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
symbol from this one was _GLOBAL__sub_I__ZN4AMOS12ContigEdge_t5NCODEE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101713
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #30 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #29)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #28)
> > The bug is about the issue of lacking diagnostics, it should be fine to make
> > note of various
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #29 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #28)
> The bug is about the issue of lacking diagnostics, it should be fine to make
> note of various approaches to remedy the problem in one bug report.
>
OK,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12411
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
I think the dup is a point for reopening
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110710
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113402
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
> what input is this waiting for at the moment?
>From checking the bug history, it looks like Martin Liška was the one to put
this in the WAITING status, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114496
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Maybe the update could be just to clarify the "EnabledBy" rules for the
warning? i.e., something like "-Wsign-conversion is only and will only ever be
enabled by -Wconversion in C, and we will never have it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=951
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13756
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109835
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> FWIW, after doing more of this work, I've decided I don't really care that
> much about this one.
>
> I still think FP mismatches are often worse, but there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42818
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #35 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Дилян Палаузов from comment #34)
> Created attachment 57662 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> This fixes the problem.
>
> I do not understand the build system to say, that this is the best
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66553
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #27 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #26)
> RFC patch for detecting lifetime-dse issues via Valgrind (rather than MSan):
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105898
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|RFE: -fanalyzer should |RFE: -fanalyzer should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113679
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80036
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70730
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113414
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67819
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89072
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105401
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
putting the words "computed gotos" here for easier searchability
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37722
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/apple/sw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113168
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113019
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112973
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112897
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
I'm wondering if it'd be possible to insert a line like:
\batchmode
into the tex files?
Ref:
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/25267/what-reasons-if-any-are-there-for-compiling-in-interactive-mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96895
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gitlab.com/x86-psAB |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99741
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gitlab.com/x86-psAB |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112463
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112396
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112377
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70954
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wmisleading-indentation|-Wmisleading-indentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> While you (Gaius) here report test failure, similar to what Maciej had
> reported in PR112091 "rs6000: redefinition of 'constexpr long double
> std::abs(long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111909
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #5 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111908
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #2)
> Indeed, you can see an example of the CHERI warnings in the Morello GCC port
> here: https://godbolt.org/z/eWPfqYYYo
Where do the sources for the Morello GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110848
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #14)
> Oh right, if we're considering changing things for plain-C here, too, then
> maybe have it enabled by -Wc++-compat there?
Or rather, for plain-C modes, where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110848
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
Oh right, if we're considering changing things for plain-C here, too, then
maybe have it enabled by -Wc++-compat there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111909
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111908
Bug ID: 111908
Summary: Port CheriBSD-specific compiler warnings to GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #9)
> The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
I've been testing this on the compile farm, and there seems to be a wide amount
of variation between machines with regards to whether this fails or not; I
think it might have to do with different machines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103331
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> I'm assuming that the way that build.log is normally generated is by just
> appending `| tee build.log` to the end of a normal `make` command?
hm, doing it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111842
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to n.deshm...@samsung.com from comment #5)
> > The code is part of a third party library hence adding a explicit cast is
> > not possible.
>
> Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111843
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111842
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103324
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > Thus,
> >
> > make check RUNTESTFLAGS="execute.exp"
> > make check RUNTESTFLAGS="dg-torture.exp"
>
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103324
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Thus,
>
> make check RUNTESTFLAGS="execute.exp"
> make check RUNTESTFLAGS="dg-torture.exp"
Just confirming that the proper way to combine these would be:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103331
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
I'm assuming that the way that build.log is normally generated is by just
appending `| tee build.log` to the end of a normal `make` command?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86418
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71283
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111429
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://no-color.org/
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to simon from comment #6)
> (In reply to simon from comment #1)
> > Further:
> >
> > $ GNAT_FILE_NAME_CASE_SENSITIVE=1 gnatmake -c p*.ads
> > gcc -c páck3.ads
> > páck3.ads:1:10: warning: file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111604
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111481
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The fact nobody has tried to use it in 10+ years makes me think it's not all
> that useful.
Only reason I haven't tried to use it is because I didn't know it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111390
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111360
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk
Cool, thanks. I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to run shellcheck[1] on
GCC's various shell scripts to catch similar mistakes? I just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111368
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> N.B. test_summary doesn't print that "[master r14-3825-g0d50fac]" string
> itself, it just scrapes it from the logs, and the string in the logs comes
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111368
Bug ID: 111368
Summary: contrib/test_summary should check to ensure the git
branch being put in the email matches the branch
actually tested
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #32 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to matoro from comment #31)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #30)
> > (In reply to matoro from comment #26)
> > > We also had somebody report on IRC that they observed this on powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102665
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
Making some more progress on this:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/compare/master...cooljeanius:gcc:me/PR102665
Some notes:
- There are a lot of these; I'm not quite sure how many to include in a single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|easyhack|
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81114
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111360
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belyshev at depni dot
sinp.msu.ru
---
1 - 100 of 713 matches
Mail list logo