https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83592
Bug ID: 83592
Summary: [8 Regression] Annoying -Wparentheses warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82391
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Dec 26 14:34:33 2017
New Revision: 256001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: fix zero-usefulness case in sel_rank_for_schedule (PR 83
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 83513, which changed state.
Bug 83513 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed (error: qsort
comparator non-negative on sorted output: 3) in fill_vec_av_set in selective
scheduler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
--- Comment #7 from Keith Thompson ---
I don't agree that this bug report is invalid. I see that the
Bugzilla interface lets me change the status. Would it be appropriate
to do so?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48968
--- Comment #13 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12)
> (In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #11)
> > Also please see related bugs Bug 21161, Bug 54561, Bug 61118, Bug 65041, Bug
> > 83162. Perhaps they should be merg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83593
Bug ID: 83593
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
statement marked for throw, but doesn't)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83594
Bug ID: 83594
Summary: ICE: in function_and_variable_visibility, at
ipa-visibility.c:640 with __attribute__((noipa))
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83595
Bug ID: 83595
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: in linemap_macro_map_lookup, at
libcpp/line-map.c:1008 on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83218
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83149
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
t X::*'
return get(x);
^
t.cc:7:23: note: it must be a pointer-to-member of the form '&X::Y'
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC-Explorer-Build) 8.0.0 20171226 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83093
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83592
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83591
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82541
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82541
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
As mentioned here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/684040/
This may need to wait until we have more precise location info for constants
and variable uses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
Keith Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83149
--- Comment #5 from Neil Carlson ---
I disagree (in part) with comment 4. Ncells is a valid specification statement
(see 7.1.11, par 2 (4), Fortran 2008). Its value need not be known at compile
time; only when the get() function is executed. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Keith.S.Thompson at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11234
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=75595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11234
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
> I'll defer to Joseph or any other C FE maintainers to make the final call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg00599.html
See that email about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
--- Comment #12 from Keith Thompson ---
Andrew:
In my opinion, such conversions have undefined behavior (simply because
the standard does not define their behavior), but they are not forbidden.
The "-pedantic" and "-pedantic-errors" options, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83149
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 08:00:29PM +, neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> I disagree (in part) with comment 4.
>
As you failed to quote the part that is disagreeable, it is
somewhat difficult to pu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83149
--- Comment #7 from Neil Carlson ---
Perhaps this modification of comment 2 code is clearer.
Put this in one file:
module mod1
integer :: ncells
end module
module mod2
contains
function get() result(array)
use mod1
real array(ncell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83540
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Dec 26 23:29:20 2017
New Revision: 256003
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256003&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/83540
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83540
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20520
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83149
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 09:42:54PM +, neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> Perhaps this modification of comment 2 code is clearer.
ncell is never set.
> Put this in one file:
>
> module mod1
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42968
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42968&action=edit
partial candidate patch
Alas, although it restores good code for x86_64 and arm, it doesn't go as far
as enab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11234
--- Comment #10 from Hallvard B Furuseth ---
On 26/12/17 21:13, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Reopening based on the duplicated bug says our reading of the standard is
> incorrect. But I will let someone else decide if that is really true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
Tim Rentsch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||txr at alumni dot caltech.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42969
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42969&action=edit
complementary candidate patch
This patch complements the earlier one.
On AVR, unlike other ports, we had t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Hmm, what the complementary patch won't do is improve the odds of auto_inc or
even saving a temp in spaghetti code, rather than in loops. Maybe that's
important too? I wonder if we should add the post-inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42970&action=edit
alternative (?) complementary candidate patch
This addresses the concern of post-increment in non-loops. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42969|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Dec 27 07:50:04 2017
New Revision: 256008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Workaround PR83046 in gang-static-2.c
2017-12-27 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42971|0 |1
is obsolete|
47 matches
Mail list logo
