http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
Bug #: 55485
Summary: stack-buffer-overflow in sem_ch8.adb
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55480
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-27
03:55:45 UTC ---
Also causes...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_9.f03 -O0 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_9.f03 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55484
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-27
03:40:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 28788
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28788
assembly file for gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03 -O0 with
-fsanitize=address
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55484
Bug #: 55484
Summary: gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03 execution failures
with -fsanitize=address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett 2012-11-27 02:11:29 UTC
---
Actually, the same problem happens at -O3 with const int SIZE > 20.
base_iterations can be very high; it's just SIZE that's the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55483
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-27
01:56:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 28787
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28787
assembly file for gfortran.dg/class_optional_2.f90 -O0 with -fsanitize=address
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55482
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-27
01:52:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 28786
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28786
assembly file for gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03 -O0 with -fsanitize=address
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55483
Bug #: 55483
Summary: gfortran.dg/class_optional_2.f90 execution failures
with -fsanitize=address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55482
Bug #: 55482
Summary: gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03 execution failures with
-fsanitize=address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55480
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-27
01:34:28 UTC ---
Also in...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c_char_tests.f03 -O2 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c_char_tests.f03 -O2 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c_char_tests.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55480
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-27
01:30:31 UTC ---
This same ICE in f951 with -fsanitize=address also occurs in the testcases...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_1.f03 -O0 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55479
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-27
01:20:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28785
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28785
assembly file for registering_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single testcase
compiled with -fsa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #2 from Andr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett 2012-11-27 01:09:28 UTC
---
Created attachment 28784
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28784
zip containing preprocessed source of reduced examples and multiple binaries.
only gcc48-O2 ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Bug #: 55481
Summary: [4.8 regression] -O2 generates a wrong-code infinite
loop in C++Benchmark's simple_types_constant_folding
int8 xor test
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55480
Bug #: 55480
Summary: gfortran.dg/allocate_alloc_opt_1{0,3}.f90 test cases
ICE f91 with -fsanitize=address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55479
Bug #: 55479
Summary: gfortran.dg/coarray/registering_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib
-O2 -lcaf_single execution test fails with
-fsanitize=address
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55463
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55463
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-26
23:53:34 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Nov 26 23:53:29 2012
New Revision: 193831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193831
Log:
PR libstdc++/55463
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55472
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Linker cannot find lambda |[4.7/4.8 Regression] Linker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55015
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Lambda functions not found |[4.7/4.8 Regression] Lambda
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53094
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-11-26 23:08:45
UTC ---
The crash within libbacktrace is occurring as it tries to read the debug info.
This is presumably a bug in libbacktrace, but I don't know what the problem is
without more in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #16 from Arthur O'Dwyer
2012-11-26 23:02:52 UTC ---
(Sorry for the spam.)
The corresponding Clang enhancement is
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14440
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-11-26 23:02:46
UTC ---
Why are there no line numbers in the backtrace from gdb? You said you compiled
with -g. Are you sure that libbacktrace itself was compiled with -g?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
Bug #: 55478
Summary: [devirt] trunk fails inline-devirt test #4
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55476
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55476
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26 22:05:23 UTC ---
The warning obviously gets triggered because the pointer has the 'host_assoc'
attribute (due to its use in the contained subroutine):
warn = lvalue->symtree->n.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Bug #: 55477
Summary: [devirt] trunk fails inline-devirt tests #2 and and #3
whereas they pass in google/4_7
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55475
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55476
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55472
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55476
Bug #: 55476
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bogus warning "Pointer might outlive
the pointer target"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf 2012-11-26 20:57:53
UTC ---
I'm also having difficulties to see how the interface definition
could be standard compatible. The F2k8 draft says:
15.5.1 Deļ¬nition and reference of interoperable procedures
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55475
Bug #: 55475
Summary: heap-buffer-overflow in fortran/error.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55474
Bug #: 55474
Summary: global-buffer-overflow in lto-wrapper.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #10 from Harald Anlauf 2012-11-26 20:24:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Well, then somebody should also complain to NAG.
> The code in comment #6 fails to compile.
And to IBM.
% xlf -qversion
IBM XL Fortran for AIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #8 from Juno Krahn 2012-11-26 19:55:11
UTC ---
Also, I should have mentioned that multiple interface specs used to work in Gnu
Fortran, and it still works in current Intel, Sun and Open64 Fortran compilers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55473
Bug #: 55473
Summary: quadmath.h should have extern "C" for C++ users
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
Juno Krahn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juno.krahn at nih dot gov
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55472
--- Comment #1 from walker_643 at yahoo dot com 2012-11-26 19:48:15 UTC ---
I believe the code to be valid C++11, and, indeed it does compile, link, and
run on gcc 4.5 (as seen here http://ideone.com/VvFuMs ), but no GCC versions
4.7 - 4.8 a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
gustavo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55472
Bug #: 55472
Summary: Linker cannot find lambda symbol
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54630
--- Comment #19 from Larry Baker 2012-11-26 19:44:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Ian,
> You can also add linker options via the configure options
> --with-stage1-ldflags
> and --with-boot-ldflags, q.v.
So, I read what the GCC configure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32647
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||55277
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-26
19:24:38 UTC ---
Almost certainly what happens is that the mutex m gets destroyed when returning
from main, but there are threads still using it and so they can no longer lock
it.
It's unde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-26
19:23:22 UTC ---
If you change the code to join the threads instead of leaving them running when
the program exits then the output is correct.
#include
#include
#include
#include
s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Host|fedora
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
gustavo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||fedora 17
--- Comment #2 from gustavo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-26
18:46:25 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:46:12 2012
New Revision: 193826
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193826
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.c-tor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55245
--- Comment #7 from Diego Novillo 2012-11-26
18:35:43 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:35:38 2012
New Revision: 193825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193825
Log:
Google ref b/7500842.
2012-11-26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
Bug #: 55471
Summary: c++ mutex does not work as expected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55277
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-26
18:08:50 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:08:44 2012
New Revision: 193824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193824
Log:
2012-11-26 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #5 from Fran Martinez Fadrique
2012-11-26 17:36:04 UTC ---
I have also tried with ekopath and g95 and both take it without a diagnostic.
I have been checking section 15.4 of the ISO standard and I have found nothing
that forbid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26 17:08:20 UTC ---
Note: The same behavior occurs with all gfortran versions I tried (4.3, 4.6,
4.7 and trunk).
The check which rejects it is in gfc_verify_binding_labels (resolve.c).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #6 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-11-26 16:46:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 28779
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28779
Patch to use libbacktrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-26 16:43:18 UTC ---
On 11/26/2012 11:36 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> P1 for an error-recovery bug sounds way too high, those should be P4-ish.
I just restored the previous set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-26
16:36:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 28778
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28778
gcc48-pr52650.patch
P1 for an error-recovery bug sounds way too high, those should be P4-i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-26 16:36:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> >
> > Hmm, I suppose this is because we no longer merge symbols that are not part
> > of
> > symtab, but
> > used only for debugging
> >
> > H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-11-26
15:57:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > /export/project/git/gcc-regression-bootstrap/master/191466/bld/gcc/cc1...done.
> > (gdb) whatis global_options
> > type =
> > (gdb) whatis cl_op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-26 14:58:12 UTC ---
On 11/26/2012 4:47 AM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> A milestone of 3.0.x??
It seems I did this while updating the "Last reconfirmed" date. As I
understand it,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-26
14:40:20 UTC ---
I think naming the warning would make sense, so it can be disabled by people
who want to use scoped enums with bit-fields
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-26
14:37:48 UTC ---
I disagree. You can't see for aggregate var in memory which
actually has been allocated on the stack, VTA doesn't value track those (and
can't really), there you just have a v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek 2012-11-26
14:29:59 UTC ---
Patch posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02095.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2
Summary|[4.6/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54976
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-11-26
14:26:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:26:07 2012
New Revision: 193816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193816
Log:
2012-11-26 Richard Biener
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener 2012-11-26
14:26:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:26:07 2012
New Revision: 193816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193816
Log:
2012-11-26 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2012-11-26
14:26:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:26:07 2012
New Revision: 193816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193816
Log:
2012-11-26 Richard Biener
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-26
14:00:37 UTC ---
Patchlet in Comment #6 passes testing for me.
As I tried clumsily to explain, I don't think it's consistent to avoid the
warning for Comment #1 if we warn for Comment #13 sco
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-26
13:39:17 UTC ---
I mean, with the grokbitfield tweak we obtain a behavior for Comment #1 which
in terms of warnings it's just a variant of Comment #13: if we already decided
that it's fine to w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55470
Bug #: 55470
Summary: Enable both ld and gold in gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-26 13:29:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> This means that somewhere there is a cl_option definition that may prevail
> that has size 1. lto_symtab_resolve_symbols is supposed to pick the
> large
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-26
13:27:45 UTC ---
Uhm, actually, when the underlying type is unscoped and we already accept the
code, we warn exactly in the same way. I'm not sure if this is already clear to
everybody, definit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-26
13:00:08 UTC ---
Well, then we should double check whether it warns at all when bitfields are
not involved, because I don't see anything bitfield-specific about the warning.
Maybe it just warns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-26
12:56:34 UTC ---
Clang doesn't warn for the code in comment 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-26 12:45:23 UTC
---
> /export/project/git/gcc-regression-bootstrap/master/191466/bld/gcc/cc1...done.
> (gdb) whatis global_options
> type =
> (gdb) whatis cl_options
> type =
> (gdb) whatis cl_e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-26
12:43:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> we *error* out anyway, isn't that we are only emitting a warning and only when
> we are assigning the SHRT_MAX + 1.
But isn't the error because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |middle-end
Version|4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener 2012-11-26
12:24:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Another problem with revision 191466 is we lost
> debug info on cl_options. With revision 191465,
> I got
>
> (gdb) whatis cl_options
> type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-26
12:22:49 UTC ---
And to further clarify wrt your specific Comment 11, Jon, for:
#include
enum Code {
SUCCESS = 0
};
Code a = static_cast(SHRT_MAX + 1);
short r[] = {a};
we cur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
