||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=28492
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
The location info being bad here is bug 28492
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81431
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I would prefer to see -Weffc++ deprecated and removed, so tying this valid
> request to -Weffc++ might see it die.
If bug 16166 is fixed, then this request wou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4898
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Summary|adding an option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=704
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=704
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2006-02-02 13:45:08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4898
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Why a new warning instead of making -Wterminate handle throw() as well as
> noexcept ?
For consistency with clang? I dunno, I guess putting it under -Wterminat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=704
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70644
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> (Reduced from PR 58822)
>
> struct Base { Base(int) { } };
>
> int foo(Base*) { return 0; }
>
> struct X : virtual Base {
> X() : Base(foo(this)) { }
> };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=704
--- Comment #22 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #21)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #20)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #19)
> > > (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #18)
> > > > W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02055.html
Did this make it in? If not, have you pinged it lately?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58142
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Commen
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=81334
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
related to bug 81334 perhaps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89051
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69777
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53404
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89561
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17426
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21549
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24729
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13756
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #8)
> > > tree-ssa documentation still missing after the mainline mer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31873
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32392
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> That said, there is a whole bunch of applications that would kill for
> >> -mrecip,
> > even for 11bit ones. Games are one of them, fo
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
dup of bug 89443
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89443 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89443
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89579
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66203
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #4)
> The Arm builds that do not need anything from libgloss (and thus do not need
> a specs file) while linking come from a configuration that hard codes the
> unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45065
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> (In reply to Dean Edmonds from comment #0)
> > Compiling with -fvisibility=hidden and -fvisibility-inlines-hidden.
> >
> > I have a Base class with default visib
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends on|22568 |
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Related to / dup of PR22568. Meta-bug ifcvt sucks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22568
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|26914 |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
All the bugs that this one depends upon have been closed so I'm closing this
one as well; feel free to reopen if there are new bugs for this one to d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2)
> I don't know how to add these bugs to the "Depends on" field, therefore I'm
> listing them here. Could it be that a mere reporter cannot do this?
>
> bug 79645
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This doesn't seem a very useful meta-bug. Every bug with Component=c++ and
> Keywords=rejects-valid is a standard conformance issue.
>
> What's the point of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67062
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Luke Allardyce from comment #0)
> When cross building GCC for windows on OS X the -no-pie flag is being passed
> to the native linker for some of the build tools (e.g. genhooks) which
> breaks th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32497
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Valeriy E. Ushakov from comment #16)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Valeriy E. Ushakov from comment #11)
> > > Created attachment 44668 [details]
> > > Diff agai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89631
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82075
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70390
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #13)
> Actually, I cannot reproduce it on the trunk anymore as of r265575.
So can this be closed then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78380
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Without bisection it's hard to identify what fix to backport. Note the
> original issue doesn't reproduce for me with a cross to
> x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39725
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #1)
> This bug needs TLC from a MIPS person. At least a confirmation would be nice.
This bug has been in WAITING since 2010. Can it be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88136
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> Author: jason
> Date: Thu Dec 6 21:17:08 2018
> New Revision: 266867
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266867&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR c++/881
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> Let me have a deeper look at what can be done.
How has that deeper look been going?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #6)
> But this cannot apply to projects that use GNU Automake, which does not
> generate such rules. And with Automake, things are more complex in practice,
> because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60972
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68160
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48957
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89668
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84717
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
The SPE port is getting removed for GCC 9, right? So can this be closed then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79595
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Severity|minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Good idea.
>
> We can't do it at run-time from inside the diagnostics subsystem, as the
> line-breaking information is lost when the literal is compiled.
>
> So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738
Bug 82738 depends on bug 68836, which changed state.
Bug 68836 Summary: GCC can't properly emit debug info for function arguments in
a back-trace when using -Og
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68836
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|40883 |
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federico.kircheis at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78915
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> Possibly a dup of PR87209
Or vice versa.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to René J.V. Bertin from comment #4)
> > > > Any news on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26732
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #8)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > > Now we don't even error out at -O3.
> >
> > Why would the -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37577
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> > Whether or not to fix as well as whether or not to warn at -O0 are a topic
> > of debate. I'm not sure I'm up f
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: gerald at pfeifer dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Right now java-related mailing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FSF needs to use xcrun on |FSF GCC needs to do
|d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #16 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> FWIW I had a quick look the other day if there was an easy fix to this PR,
> and didn't find a '5 minute' one.
>
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #14)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34311
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62181
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> > Was this question ever answered?
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01337.html
>
> Oh that's inte
||2019-03-25
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89808
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57021
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
,
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
I think there's a dup of this around here somewhere...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89854
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84898
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40789
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dcb314 at hotmail dot com, ettl.martin at gmx dot de
Depends on: 33715, 47170, 49564, 50355, 52124, 53871, 54582
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33715
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I would like to have a warning in C++ that warns about local variables
> > assigned
> > via operator new or operator new[], but th
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=71852
Summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79364
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70361
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79022
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82338
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85608
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kenner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85910
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83822
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||89863
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82648
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
901 - 1000 of 3604 matches
Mail list logo
