https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111526
--- Comment #4 from Pádraig Brady ---
Interestingly, gcc 13 _does_ warn with -Wc11-c2x-compat,
but does not warn with -Wpedantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111526
--- Comment #3 from Pádraig Brady ---
Created attachment 55964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55964=edit
coreutils tail.c compilation unit
This should warn with -Wpedantic, but doesn't on gcc 13
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 55963
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55963=edit
coreutils fix for non gcc >= 11
Ever since https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
--- Comment #3 from Pádraig Brady ---
I've not got a reduced example where clang is generating the call, but it could
be a linker issue as the two constructors are aliased to the same address.
The linker used here was lld.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
--- Comment #2 from Pádraig Brady ---
The test case is in bug #70462.
Copying here...
g++ -std=c++11 -c -o t.o -x c++ - << EOF
struct Bar final
{
Bar();
};
Bar::Bar()
{}
EOF
$ nm t.o | grep C2 || echo ABI issue
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The change to elide the "base object constructor" for final classes in bug
#70462 introduces an ABI incompatibility with cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady ---
Facebook
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84726
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87185
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady ---
Created attachment 44646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44646=edit
ICE avoidance patch and test case
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
bug 84726 introduced a regression in GCC 8.0 causing a compiler crash with:
void f() { const int i=0; [&]() noexcept {i;}; }
This crashes in prune_lambda_captures as we assume const_vars
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86134
--- Comment #11 from Pádraig Brady ---
I agree that -Wno-... should never be promoted to an error as we see with:
$ echo 'int maint(){}' | gcc -S -x c -Wno-unknown-warning-option -Wall -Werror
-Wextra -Wno-error=return-type -
: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #7 from Pádraig Brady ---
Have been running with these patches on an extremely large code base for the
last few months, without issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81976
--- Comment #4 from Pádraig Brady ---
According to the previous comment this depends on PR 82764
and the target milestone is 7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84497
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady ---
Created attachment 43479
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43479=edit
Proposed patch and testcase. This passes the full testsuite
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
In some cases extern thread_local vars will generate a reference
to a tls_init function, when there is none generated for the translation unit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66971
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
--- Comment #15 from Pádraig Brady ---
Actually it is backported to 5.
So it would be good to set the "Target Milestone" to 5.5
so this is obvious from this bug and from the list of bugs fixed in 5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71913
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #13
: libgcc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 39991
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39991=edit
problematic symbol
There is an infinite recursion in d_print_comp() in gcc-5 to
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This is a regression since 5.1 which works with clang and gcc 4.x
The issue is due to the redundant extern reference declaration,
which
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 38130
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38130=edit
test source generator
The attached shell scr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com ---
I'm not understanding completely TBH. Are flexible array members not special?
Should the optimizations be restricted on access through the flexible array,
because I presume most/all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #4 from Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com ---
I should note that I worked around the issue by increasing the allocation for
the structure on the heap up to a multiple of alignof(the_struct). See:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #7 from Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com ---
Created attachment 35852
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35852action=edit
reproducer
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: P at draigBrady dot com
Target Milestone: ---
On a heap allocated structure, direct access to flexible array members with
optimization at -O2 can result in reads to memory beyond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #3 from Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com ---
Created attachment 35851
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35851action=edit
disassembly of forced good mem access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com ---
Created attachment 35849
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35849action=edit
summary code (does not reproduce issue)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #2 from Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com ---
Created attachment 35850
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35850action=edit
disassembly of problematic mem access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
Bug 53131 depends on bug 43772, which changed state.
Bug 43772 Summary: Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady dot com 2010-11-24 12:09:33
UTC ---
A related thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1998-07/msg00031.html
--- Comment #3 from P at draigBrady dot com 2010-04-22 00:37 ---
I've confirmed that this is _not_ an issue with the previous
gcc (GCC) 4.4.1 20090725 (Red Hat 4.4.1-2)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #3 from P at draigBrady dot com 2010-04-22 00:40 ---
Actually gcc 4.5 was the first version to mention -Wlogical-op in the release
notes, but that option has actually been available since gcc 4.3.0 (5 Mar 2008)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4412
--- Comment #2 from P at draigBrady dot com 2010-04-17 17:40 ---
Well the warning should at least change.
However the logical operation itself is not an issue,
so I think a warning should not be issued at all.
I.E. if TOP and BOT are defined as a narrower range
then we don't get
warning when testing limits
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P at draigBrady dot com
GCC build triplet: i686
--- Comment #2 from P at draigBrady dot com 2010-04-15 09:00 ---
GCC 4.5 was released yesterday with -Wlogical-op
Thanks :)
--
P at draigBrady dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: P at draigBrady dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org
41 matches
Mail list logo
