https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68897
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> > You just need to come up with a good name and implement a patch like the
> > ones shown in PR7651. Finding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:57:05PM +, angus at agibson dot me wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
>
> --- Comment #5 from Angus Gibson ---
> I agree that it's not ideal...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #5 from Angus Gibson ---
I agree that it's not ideal... Unfortunately an awkward file format, and
fortran is usually the wrong language for this kind of IO anyway. I guess the
note that "A processor may prohibit some control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #8 from Armin Rigo ---
I'd like to point out that the problem only shows up with all the extra lines
of code that appear unrelated: everything before the loop, and the first half
of the loop itself (the switch-with-goto with cases 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92113
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #7 from Armin Rigo ---
Created attachment 47056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47056=edit
made the example runnable
Here is a main(). Compare:
* gcc -Og foomin3.c foomin3main.c && a.out
* gcc -O1 foomin3.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason the intersection gives [-INF, -8] is that compare_values (
-7, e.7_8 + 9223372036854775806 ) returns -1 rather than -2. And that is
because it thinks exactly 9223372036854775806 is added to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or, more likely the intersection into [-INF, -8] is incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
From what I can see, the weird + 0x7ffe is created when
extract_range_from_plus_minus_expr is called with PLUS_EXPR and VARYING and
long int [-INF, e.7_8 + -1] ranges.
/* Build the symbolic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67299
Miguel Saldivar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||saldivarcher at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #7 from Witold Baryluk ---
Online examples: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/Nyjty3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92127
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also this test:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"vectorization not profitable" 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The testcase is not very good because it is missing main and calling the
function with some arguments that will trigger the miscompilation.
Anyway, at least at -O2 it seems to be a VRP bug to me:
ao_31 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #2 from Armin Rigo ---
Created attachment 47054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47054=edit
slightly different version, with comments showing the expected values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #6 from Witold Baryluk ---
I also tested clang with LLVM 10~svn374655 and it does vectorize the loop
properly, even when both frequency and amplitude variables are updated every
loop.
It still doesn't inline calls to sinf, even if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92132
Bug ID: 92132
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-reduc-4.c fails
with its introduction in r277067
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Zaak from comment #18)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> > by the way, I haven't been able to find a C reproducer for this issue - if
> > you feel we should have a testcase for it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #5 from Witold Baryluk ---
As a bonus:
static float perlin1d(float x) {
float accum = 0.0f;
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
accum += powf(0.781f, i) * sinf(x * powf(2.131f, i));
}
return accum;
}
claims to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83543
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
The test committed for the solution for pr83821 is disabled for all targets
except LP64 x86_64 to get around this limitation. Once this is implemented
across all targets the test should be enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 83821, which changed state.
Bug 83821 Summary: local aggregate initialization defeats strlen optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83821
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #4 from Witold Baryluk ---
If I reduce minimized test case even further:
only frequency update: VECTORIZED:
static float perlin1d(float x) {
float accum = 0.0f;
float amplitude = 1.0f;
float frequency = 1.0f;
for (int i =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83821
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #1 from Armin Rigo ---
Comment on attachment 47053
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47053
creduce'd C source that miscompiles in -O>=1
BTW I just noticed that the reduced code is highly self-recursive, but that's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83821
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Oct 16 19:24:36 2019
New Revision: 277080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277080=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83821 - local aggregate initialization defeats strlen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Wed Oct 16 19:22:17 2019
New Revision: 277079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277079=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin] Pick up SDKROOT as the sysroot fallback.
For compatibility with xcrun and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #3 from Witold Baryluk ---
If only the frequency is updated in the inner loop:
frequency *= 2.131f;
function fill_data is vectorized:
mesh_minimal.c:34:3: optimized: loop vectorized using 64 byte vectors
mesh_minimal.c:33:13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
Bug ID: 92131
Summary: incorrect assumption that (ao >= 0) is always false
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #2 from Witold Baryluk ---
Added a minimized test case that has only one outer loop, and f and h are
removed for simple inlined replacement.
Example diagnostic:
$ gcc -std=c17 -march=knm -O3 -ffast-math -fassociative-math
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
--- Comment #1 from Witold Baryluk ---
Created attachment 47052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47052=edit
Minimized test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92129
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92130
Bug ID: 92130
Summary: Missed vectorization for iteration dependent loads and
simple multiplicative accumulators
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92129
Bug ID: 92129
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in vectorizable_reduction, at
tree-vect-loop.c:5869
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92117
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's a self-contained program. AFAICT, pos= has an effect only within the
first record, and thereafter it is ignored.
F2018, 12.3.3.4(4) gives a bulleted list of things that can cause problems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 47050
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47050=edit
self-contained program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63945
Witold Baryluk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||witold.baryluk+gcc at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 91996, which changed state.
Bug 91996 Summary: fold non-constant strlen relational expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91996
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92128
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||83819
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92128
Bug ID: 92128
Summary: fold more non-constant strlen relational expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91996
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Oct 16 17:18:57 2019
New Revision: 277076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277076=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91996 - fold non-constant strlen relational expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 05:02:50PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > GNU Fortran (GCC) 7.4.0
This was released in Dec 2018, so ...
> This may have been fixed by
>
> r242802 | kargl |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92114
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92127
Bug ID: 92127
Summary: [10 regression]
gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-fast-math-vect-pr2
9925.c fails after r276645 on power7
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91055
Kamlesh Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kamleshbhalui at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92126
Bug ID: 92126
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/vect/pr62171.c fails after
r276876 on power7
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78260
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92015
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47049
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47049=edit
gcc10-pr92015.patch
Like this. Untested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92110
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The __builtin_warning patch implements the per-location solution
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01015.html) but I think the more
aggregate approach would be more informative and so preferable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92125
Bug ID: 92125
Summary: New test gcc.dg/ipa/pr91088.c introduced in r277054
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92115
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #3)
> Arseny, how did you find this? Did you just run the regtest? I wonder why
> didn't I see it during my test runs.
My test harness continuously compiles a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
Bug ID: 92124
Summary: std::vector copy-assigning when it should move-assign.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92122
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems a bug introduced in r120581, COND_EXPR really needs to be handled like a
PHI node, which is handled as:
for (i = 0; i < gimple_phi_num_args (stmt); i++)
{
tree rhs =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92071
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010
--- Comment #7 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Author: guojiufu
Date: Wed Oct 16 13:35:41 2019
New Revision: 277065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277065=gcc=rev
Log:
In PR70010, a function is marked with target(no-vsx) to disable VSX code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
Bug ID: 92123
Summary: [F2018/array-descriptor] Scalar allocatable/pointer
with array descriptor (via bind(C)): ICE with select
rank or error scalar variable with POINTER or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92033
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92122
Bug ID: 92122
Summary: [coarrays, polymophism] Error 'must be a scalar of
type LOCK_TYPE'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92120
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For OpenMP 5 there is quite a lot of mapping related changes that need to be
implemented, first of all, the C/C++ array section support needs to be
rewritten because the rules changed there too much and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57025
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Alan Coopersmith ---
> And I got here this week due to the discussion on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81827
--- Comment #24 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Luke Robison from comment #23)
> (In reply to Luke Robison from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Luke Robison from comment #21)
> > > (1) Changing some or all of the "type(levelNN)" definitions to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, it apparently has found new jump threading opportunities after
partition_blocks. Are such changes useful? Does it happen often?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #10 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
> Question is how to figure out which to do when.
I would always do the former before reload, and always the latter after
reload.
However, I have a concern regarding this approach: in more complicated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92121
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(It looks like the kernel is simply telling you that you cannot enable
retpoline support when using GCC 4.9.4, which seems self-explanatory, and not a
GCC bug).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|2019-10-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92121
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92121
Bug ID: 92121
Summary: Error using GCC 4.9.4 -- arch/x86/Makefile:166: ***
CONFIG_RETPOLINE=y,
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92120
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92119
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92120
Bug ID: 92120
Summary: OpenMP 5 – implicit mapping of this->member variable
access – "this[:1]" shall be mapped
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92119
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 16 10:05:21 2019
New Revision: 277057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277057=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92119
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92119
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92033
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Oct 16 09:50:44 2019
New Revision: 277056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277056=gcc=rev
Log:
Deal with incoming POLY_INT_CST ranges (PR92033)
This patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
mpression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.0 20191016 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 91790, which changed state.
Bug 91790 Summary: ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 2 follows
the use)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 16 09:25:34 2019
New Revision: 277055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277055=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-16 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-10-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 16 09:25:34 2019
New Revision: 277055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277055=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-16 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-10-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91968
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 16 09:25:34 2019
New Revision: 277055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277055=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-16 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-10-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 16 09:25:34 2019
New Revision: 277055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277055=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-16 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-10-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91772
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 16 09:25:34 2019
New Revision: 277055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277055=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-10-16 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-10-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'll commit a patch to add std::construct_at today or tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not valid, because operator new is not a constexpr function.
You have to use a new-expression (that resolves to one of the standard operator
new allocation functions), or std::allocator::allocate,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92115
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Thanks again, Jakub.
Arseny, how did you find this? Did you just run the regtest? I wonder why
didn't I see it during my test runs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92118
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92118
Bug ID: 92118
Summary: warning with [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] in -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92117
Bug ID: 92117
Summary: Warning from -Wbad-function-cast when casting from
bool to int
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92111
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
