https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95326
Haoxin Tu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|10.0
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95326
Bug ID: 95326
Summary: UBsan can not detect signed-integer-overflow correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95256
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d0dc47de6ed9609fe7445ea0941a6a822c80f88
commit r11-621-g9d0dc47de6ed9609fe7445ea0941a6a822c80f88
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d0dc47de6ed9609fe7445ea0941a6a822c80f88
commit r11-621-g9d0dc47de6ed9609fe7445ea0941a6a822c80f88
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95306
--- Comment #1 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
A similar error happens for the builtin "memcpy":
error: unimplemented primitive type for builtin: 38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95325
Bug ID: 95325
Summary: Support 128-bit integers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95324
Bug ID: 95324
Summary: Segmentation fault when using variadic lambda template
in concept definition
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8 Regression] by-ref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:487f16a7f2a6f849497a0d2f8fff61225e2270f6
commit r8-10272-g487f16a7f2a6f849497a0d2f8fff61225e2270f6
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc721725161c6ee3813870a734c0b0c18429a922
commit r8-10274-gbc721725161c6ee3813870a734c0b0c18429a922
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09831707ce65606f951c97632d882f083ad3ed02
commit r8-10273-g09831707ce65606f951c97632d882f083ad3ed02
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f76202e096fc0be4db21761399b55f10cd09b20d
commit r9-8621-gf76202e096fc0be4db21761399b55f10cd09b20d
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0296697cf9893dc9509cdcd8e3fd4ba9fe422527
commit r9-8623-g0296697cf9893dc9509cdcd8e3fd4ba9fe422527
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90479
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e153e0ef3a35c2c72e8bf89bd905fe27f8877852
commit r9-8622-ge153e0ef3a35c2c72e8bf89bd905fe27f8877852
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91664c43c0acf56fd86643530e4b0be78a06446c
commit r9-8620-g91664c43c0acf56fd86643530e4b0be78a06446c
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:01ff88c5619897198117b1a460d48774cfcdf396
commit r10-8181-g01ff88c5619897198117b1a460d48774cfcdf396
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cee81365ad32ef947f500e4cf4b3514d88236c9
commit r10-8180-g4cee81365ad32ef947f500e4cf4b3514d88236c9
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90479
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c79e664b153bd4cfdeec77b495d595e50b97c752
commit r10-8182-gc79e664b153bd4cfdeec77b495d595e50b97c752
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa613a81831bdc044840a95a7a7803a235608503
commit r10-8183-gaa613a81831bdc044840a95a7a7803a235608503
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95252
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Brett Neumeier from comment #9)
> Confirmed, the issue does not occur with 2.33.1. Thank you for your
> attention and help!
Please CC me on the binutils bug (just so I can keep track of it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
Brett Neumeier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95323
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95089
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch submmitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-May/054385.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95089
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95323
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> local.f90:3: Error: Can't open included file 'SIZES'
>
> Please include everything needed to reproduce.
Done.
> Are you sure this is a fortran bug, rather than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95089
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95323
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 48599
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48599=edit
Fortran header file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95323
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I think it is related to the fixes that was done for
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2 which was fixed in 2.34.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Brett Neumeier from comment #6)
> I can try again with 2.33.1 and see if I get different results, if that
> would help?
If it works with 2.33.1, can you report this directly to binutils:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95323
Bug ID: 95323
Summary: ice in compute_live_loop_exits, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:247
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #6 from Brett Neumeier ---
The host binutils (used to compile the cross-toolchain):
$ as --version
GNU assembler (GNU Binutils) 2.34.0.20200507
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The assembler code works for me with binutils 2.33.1. So again which version
of binutils are you using for the cross compiler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Component|bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322
Bug ID: 95322
Summary: std::list | take | transform, expression does not work
cbegin() == end()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95321
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> This testcase is fixed by [1]
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/546408.html
Interesting. I've done quite a bit of cooperlake specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95321
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I don't think this is valid:
> BY the time operator delete gets called the deconstructor is called and
> therefor the object no longer exists therefor:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
@egallager: Why did you add 'deferred' keyword? I sent a patch for it to GCC
patches mailing list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70053
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I see no conversion there?
But, why does it it store to memory at all?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95321
Bug ID: 95321
Summary: Run-time crash on valid destructor code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95320
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95320
Bug ID: 95320
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in odr_type_p, at ipa-utils.h:246,
during IPA pass: pure-const
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95319
Bug ID: 95319
Summary: Regression from gcc9.3 when inserting into a vector
with an initializer list. Error: a GNU-style
designated initializer for class
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #3 from Brett Neumeier ---
Created attachment 48596
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48596=edit
result of compilation with -fno-align-loop specified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #2 from Brett Neumeier ---
Created attachment 48595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48595=edit
result of compilation with default settings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
Bug ID: 95318
Summary: gcc 10.1 on x86_64 fails to build aarch64
cross-compiler when using default optimization
settings
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95318
--- Comment #1 from Brett Neumeier ---
Created attachment 48594
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48594=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95317
Bug ID: 95317
Summary: [7 regression] ICE on valid C++14 code, in
tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15649
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Sorry about that; thanks for trying. I think I can figure out a reproducer,
and will try tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95316
Bug ID: 95316
Summary: [10 Regression] binary built with -fopenacc fails to
run when not all offload compilers are installed that
were configured
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92815
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #5 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
The reproducer generates a file where the function create_code only contains
this:
/* Replay of API calls for ctxt_0x7f8079128680. */
So, no code is actually generated and thus, does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
Bug ID: 95315
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
lookup_page_table_entry)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
// { dg-do link }
typedef __PTRDIFF_TYPE__ ptrdiff_t;
template
class I
{
public:
typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
I ();
~I ();
I (T *);
I (const I &);
T * ();
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95197
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For e.g.
void bar (I );
void
foo (I )
{
#pragma omp task //firstprivate (a)
bar (a);
}
with the same templates this is handled by omp_cxx_notice_variable, which will
1068 get_copy_ctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
unshare_expr can handle that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks Jakub, that sounds like the problem: I'm creating a tree per
playback::rvalue (m_inner), and I need to unshare them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95058
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95058
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 95266 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95309
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95309
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc0c0196340f7ac58b10d0042d7cea776d6f7864
commit r11-615-gdc0c0196340f7ac58b10d0042d7cea776d6f7864
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> 1 + (size_t) -1 give 0
It wasn't obvious to me that the operation was supposed to happen in some C/C++
type (they don't say which one) or in a mathematical,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for reporting it; this sounds like a bug.
Please can you use attach a reproducer (e.g. using
gcc_jit_context_dump_reproducer_to_file).
Looking at the backtrace, it looks like a bad interaction with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
Bug ID: 95314
Summary: Sharing a local reference to a global variable in
multiple functions results in location references
block not in block tree
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Likewise crashing is:
!$omp target map(tofrom: i) map(i)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
The libgfortran bug is now PR 95313 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
--- Comment #2 from John Donners ---
hmm, indeed I found the applicable text in the standard (2.14) as well:
"The effect of the firstprivate clause is as if it is applied to one or more
constructs as follows: To the target construct if it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95313
Bug ID: 95313
Summary: Possible overflow in itoa_buf
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67bfbda18f4e6d0d30ad8f8790f1d0d4653131ed
commit r11-610-g67bfbda18f4e6d0d30ad8f8790f1d0d4653131ed
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4acca1c0635dfa43cd8c4bfe2b22e17909fc23a3
commit r11-609-g4acca1c0635dfa43cd8c4bfe2b22e17909fc23a3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> pointer-overflow is a cheap check without any context, for ptr + off
> it will do
> uintptr_t res = (uintptr_t) ptr + off;
> if (((intptr_t) res) < 0 ? res >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This testcase is fixed by [1]
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/546408.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase, so that there is no UB.
void bar (void);
void
foo (long int *x, int y, int *z, int v)
{
int a[y];
int b;
for (b = 0; b < 3; ++b)
z[b] = x[b] + 1.0f;
if (v)
return;
bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95309
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
So SLP vectorization decides to vectorize the SImode stores with V1SImode
vector stores because the cited revision does not cost the constant as
SLP_TREE_NUMBER_OF_VEC_STMTS is zero for it. That's because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95271
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0e27f72358794692e367363940c6383e9ad1e45
commit r11-608-gc0e27f72358794692e367363940c6383e9ad1e45
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95297
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d31694544d2d805151899ab0a0bc654767035ad6
commit r11-607-gd31694544d2d805151899ab0a0bc654767035ad6
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > There is nothing wrong on addition of -1, whether signed or cast to
> > size_t/uintptr_t, to a pointer,
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Frantisek Sumsal from comment #7)
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't detecting pointer overflows
> (even in cases where it's apparently not an undefined behavior) the sole
> purpose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Known to fail|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95308
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0c623f58198d3c8f767a181574537720386b468
commit r11-606-ga0c623f58198d3c8f767a181574537720386b468
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95279
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> There is nothing wrong on addition of -1, whether signed or cast to
> size_t/uintptr_t, to a pointer,
Looking at the standard (I am not a pro at that), one could
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
