https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93841
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93838
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93838
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c39d0b79db7f9bf58a64bf987c161ae0b9dcec4
commit r10-6754-g6c39d0b79db7f9bf58a64bf987c161ae0b9dcec4
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93830
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f40237a37b28a4c9143bfcbf5886fc9a6d3b5cfe
commit r10-6752-gf40237a37b28a4c9143bfcbf5886fc9a6d3b5cfe
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93830
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93831
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:093bdf2cec611947fb69d8ced21a2d875166cba0
commit r10-6753-g093bdf2cec611947fb69d8ced21a2d875166cba0
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93841
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a172be3e5e849ef82f07ce034837630e73f025b
commit r10-6755-g4a172be3e5e849ef82f07ce034837630e73f025b
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93844
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The only way to capture these may
> be to introduce additional scoping in the FEs whenever new local decls
> are added. Also consider
>
> const char *oldst =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93844
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> and there's a duplicate PR about this.
I found: PR92386 - "gdb issue with variable-shadowing" which sound similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93844
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Guess it's the same bug as with C99 or C++ where you can write
>
> const char *st = "Shall we?";
> int main()
> {
> printf ("%s\n", st);
> printf ("%s\n",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93842
--- Comment #3 from kuzniar95 at o2 dot pl ---
@Richard Biener changing it to
char const ch = '='; // NOT OK
doesn't solve the issue. Interestingly dropping constness:
char ch = '='; // OK
works.
So we are onto something - both const and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 93443, which changed state.
Bug 93443 Summary: gcc/cp/coroutines.cc:3555:23: runtime error: load of value
255, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93443
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93443
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93443
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
AFAICS, this should be fixed now, yes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93831
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
you're welcome, of course - if not, hopefully I can get to this and the other
translation comments over the weekend (been out of the office at WG21, and
catching up)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93845
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Building with -O1 fixes the problem for me. Now I need to compare the flags for
-O1 and -O2 and check which one breaks the build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Passed bootstrap/regtest on all of {x86_64,i686,powerpc64{,le}}-linux now,
> with powerpc64-linux doing both -m32/-m64 testing.
LGTM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93845
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
'-Wall -Wextra -O3' free variant
$ cat x.ii
struct g;
struct h {
g *operator->();
};
class i {
void *a;
int b;
public:
template f j() { return *static_cast(this); }
};
struct k : i {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93832
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93835
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93844
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Guess it's the same bug as with C99 or C++ where you can write
const char *st = "Shall we?";
int main()
{
printf ("%s\n", st);
printf ("%s\n", "Before assignment");
const char *st = "Hello, world!";
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93845
Bug ID: 93845
Summary: [10 regression] ICE in verify_sra_access_forest, at
tree-sra.c:2358
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93830
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93831
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93837
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93841
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93842
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed that clang really rejects the code:
$ clang pr93842.cc -Wunused -std=c++14 -c
pr93842.cc:4:20: error: variable 'ch' cannot be implicitly captured in a lambda
with no capture-default specified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93838
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93842
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93843
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|wrong code at -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93843
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93835
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 47878
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47878=edit
Source and compiler output for string.c with stack-protector disabled
(In reply to Oleg Endo from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93828
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
