https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95354
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #3)
> I see. Are there any cases that can trigger the UB of nonnull-attribute? I
> doubt the usage of “-fsanitize=nonnull-attribute” in GCC...
Yes, just use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95355
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is pre-exsisting problem.
There are a couple of wrong %q modifiers in vpmov* insn templates:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
index fde65391d7d..1cf1b8cea3b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95335
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5d8d86e8a72736bfd8a2ce8aa427dec896a442e
commit r11-657-ga5d8d86e8a72736bfd8a2ce8aa427dec896a442e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c8e16aea85286721eb5689f9bcae09d36003cb1
commit r11-660-g6c8e16aea85286721eb5689f9bcae09d36003cb1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Downing ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think std::launder merely acts as optimization barrier here and without we
> manage to propagate the constant. We still "miscompile" things dependent on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95285
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Bu Le from comment #7)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Bu Le from comment #0)
> >
> > Also it would be much more efficient to have a relocation like this if you
> > wanted a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95361
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95361
Bug ID: 95361
Summary: Segfault when generating an epilogue for a
partly-shrinked-wrapped SVE frame
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 May 2020, vsevolod.livinskij at frtk dot ru wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95295
>
> --- Comment #6 from Vsevolod Livinskiy ---
> Thank you for such a quick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95354
--- Comment #5 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #3)
> > I see. Are there any cases that can trigger the UB of nonnull-attribute? I
> > doubt the usage of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 95336, which changed state.
Bug 95336 Summary: [10/11 Regression] Bad code gen omnetpp_r aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95336
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95336
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95356
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:764ef40ba185ef9245a209ba9260d1e50bec6934
commit r11-658-g764ef40ba185ef9245a209ba9260d1e50bec6934
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95285
--- Comment #14 from Bu Le ---
> > Anyway, my point is that the size of single data does't affact the fact that
> > medium code model is missing in aarch64 and aarch64 is lack of PIC large
> > code model.
>
> What is missing is efficient
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95365
Bug ID: 95365
Summary: [11 Regression] Broken gcov since
r11-627-g1dedc12d186a1108
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95365
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95366
Bug ID: 95366
Summary: TYPE IS(character(*)) no longer matches
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #30 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #29)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #28)
> > >
> > > Find one interesting thing:
> > > If using widen reading for the run which > 16 iterations, we can see the
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95360
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
I compiled the test-case:
...
$ gcc-10 -O0 -g small.c
...
And did the stepi scenario:
...
$ gdb a.out -batch -ex start $(for n in $(seq 1 7); do echo -ex si; done)
Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x400496: file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95360
--- Comment #5 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #0)
> > Breakpoint 1, main () at small.c:5
> > 5 for (; d<1; d++)
> > (gdb) stepi
> > 0x00401154 5 for (;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95273
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
The same for:
$ ./xgcc -B. ../../gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-13.c -O3
during GIMPLE pass: vect
../../gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-13.c:21:1: internal compiler
error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95366
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95191
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95362
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 regression] pr34457-1.c |[11 regression] pr34457-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95285
--- Comment #10 from Bu Le ---
> Fortran already has -fstack-arrays to decide between allocating arrays on
> the heap or on the stack.
I tried the flag with my example. The fstack-array seems cannot move the array
in the bss to the heap. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95359
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95337
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Oops, I ran my installed compiler, and on this machine that's still 9.3. On
trunk we get one diagnostic. Ignoring the other deprecated reason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95285
--- Comment #11 from Bu Le ---
> You're right, we need an extra add, so it's like this:
>
> adrpx0, bar1.2782
> movk x1, :high32_47:bar1.2782
> add x0, x0, x1
> add x0, x0, :lo12:bar1.2782
>
> > (By the way, the high32_47
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e7d9fcff56385812764cba63e1ebf6f4c6c0320
commit r11-662-g7e7d9fcff56385812764cba63e1ebf6f4c6c0320
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95360
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #0)
> As showed, Line 6 is hit first and then hit Line 7 with stepi.
> However, when using step, gdb is first hit Line 7 and then hit Line 6.
> This is an inconsistent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't know the answer, and I don't know why it's useful to try this anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95362
Bug ID: 95362
Summary: [11 regression] pr34457-1.c fails on arm since
ga746f952abb78af9db28a7f3bce442e113877c9c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95336
--- Comment #9 from Erick Ochoa ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> I've just tried current gcc-10 branch tip and I can't reproduce it with:
> -mtune=emag -O3 -flto=16
>
> Can you please attach complete build log?
Hi,
I was able
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #9 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Actually, it seems I was wrong on the conditions to reproduce this issue.
I managed to create a small example to reproduce the issue.
I attached it to the bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #8 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Created attachment 48617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48617=edit
Small example to reproduce the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95360
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #0)
> Breakpoint 1, main () at small.c:5
> 5 for (; d<1; d++)
> (gdb) stepi
> 0x004011545 for (; d<1; d++)
> (gdb) stepi
> 0x0040115a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92606
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95362
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm aarch64 |arm, aarch64, x86_64
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95364
Bug ID: 95364
Summary: [Regression] contrib/gcc_update -r 8712 no longer
works
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95263
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac9face8d26ea4b6aa72902ecc22e89ef00763c5
commit r11-661-gac9face8d26ea4b6aa72902ecc22e89ef00763c5
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Thank you for the report. It's a known limitation Honza noticed me about.
> > Is the size problematic from size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95191
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3b9ee70f3ea73bae3f7d2956172ca9c0a338980
commit r9-8628-gb3b9ee70f3ea73bae3f7d2956172ca9c0a338980
Author: Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95360
--- Comment #6 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #0)
> > As showed, Line 6 is hit first and then hit Line 7 with stepi.
> > However, when using step, gdb is first hit Line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95242
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Thank you for the report. It's a known limitation Honza noticed me about.
> Is the size problematic from size perspective or speed perspective?
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #4)
> Shouldn't there be
>
> if (!node_removal_hook_holder)
> node_removal_hook_holder
> = symtab->add_cgraph_removal_hook (…
>
> instead?
Of course,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95363
Bug ID: 95363
Summary: [11 regression] bb-slp-pr95271.c fails on arm since
gc0e27f72358794692e367363940c6383e9ad1e45
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95336
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95337
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The duplicate "dob" was probably fixed by r10-7159 for PR 67960.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #31 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #30)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #29)
> > The key question remains whether it is legal to assume the limit implies the
> > memory is valid and use wider accesses.
> If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7fd43c38f7469a3ef5ee30e889d60e1376d4dfc
commit r11-665-ga7fd43c38f7469a3ef5ee30e889d60e1376d4dfc
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95367
--- Comment #1 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
Created attachment 48620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48620=edit
.i file generated by "--save-temps" param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Downing ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #5)
> > Also, I'm not sure if operations that implicitly create
> > objects in storage are allowed to do so if an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #5)
> Also, I'm not sure if operations that implicitly create
> objects in storage are allowed to do so if an object has already explicitly
> created in that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95369
Bug ID: 95369
Summary: braced-init-list with designated initializers as
template-argument rejected
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95315
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 48603 [details]
> gcc11-pr95315.patch
>
> Untested fix.
@@ -1823,6 +1850,12 @@ omp_resolve_declare_variant (tree base)
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95362
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95360
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95285
--- Comment #12 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Bu Le from comment #10)
> > Fortran already has -fstack-arrays to decide between allocating arrays on
> > the heap or on the stack.
>
> I tried the flag with my example. The fstack-array seems cannot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95285
--- Comment #13 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Bu Le from comment #11)
>
> > You're right, we need an extra add, so it's like this:
> >
> > adrpx0, bar1.2782
> > movkx1, :high32_47:bar1.2782
> > add x0, x0, x1
> > add x0, x0,
mming/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto --prefix=/home/marxin/bin/gcc
--disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib --disable-libsanitizer
--target=ppc64le-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200527 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c473d8f32510fcc96d584ee5099b856cfd3d8d6
commit r10-8189-g0c473d8f32510fcc96d584ee5099b856cfd3d8d6
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95310
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88443
Assignee|unassigned at
-vect-slp.c:3464
0x1025ede execute
../../gcc-latest/gcc/tree-vectorizer.c:1320
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate
[2]
https://git.dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-net/tree/drivers/net/hinic/base/hinic_pmd_nicio.c?h=v20.05
[3]
gcc (GCC) 11.0.0 20200527
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95368
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95368
Bug ID: 95368
Summary: gcc things that a lambda capture is both const and
mutable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95369
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
This is accepted fine (as it should be):
struct S {
int a;
int b;
};
int
main ()
{
S s{.a = 1, .b = 2};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95360
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> So, it seems gdb ignores the "recommended breakpoint location" at 0x4004cb,
> because there's an earlier one on the same line at 0x4004bc.
>
> The gdb approach is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Downing ---
>From the C standard:
If a value is copied into an object having no declared type using memcpy or
memmove, or is copied as an array of character type, then the effective type of
the modified object for that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95175
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95282
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95378
Bug ID: 95378
Summary: __atomic_load will write to objects of cv-qualified
types
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95252
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson ---
I tried both. Turning off register naming works. It gives a code size
decrease of about 0.003% for the libraries I looked at which can be ignored.
This probably also reduces performance; I didn't check that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95252
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 48624
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48624=edit
disable reg rename when -msave-restore
the code using MASK_SAVE_RESTORE is just for testing purposes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95282
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbaec68c86f8e89a3460cc022c75d4c4179bfb0a
commit r11-674-gbbaec68c86f8e89a3460cc022c75d4c4179bfb0a
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95273
--- Comment #8 from Bill Seurer ---
Those are new ones. I will track down the source tomorrow morning if no one
else has in the meantime.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95379
Bug ID: 95379
Summary: Don't warn about the universal zero initializer for a
structure with the 'designated_init' attribute.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95370
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95377
Bug ID: 95377
Summary: inconsistent behaviors at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95252
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 48625
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48625=edit
add uses to gpr_save pattern
the code using MASK_SAVE_RESTORE is just for testing purposes
unfinished, adds 3 new g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95322
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc78e991c35a5ee14efafb4e5566a9570fa31dd4
commit r10-8194-gfc78e991c35a5ee14efafb4e5566a9570fa31dd4
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95378
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72783
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95379
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why not just use { .foo = 0 }; instead?
Also this attribute is model after sparse's attribute, does sparse implement
what you are asking (https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page)?
Reference:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #32 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #31)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #30)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #29)
>
> > > The key question remains whether it is legal to assume the limit implies
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #33 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
It would be relatively easy if the target supports unaligned access. like
read64ne in
https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=blob;f=src/liblzma/common/memcmplen.h
Then the alignment issue is relaxed. It may be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95305
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95378
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Every __atomic_xxx built-in has the same problem. They'll all accept
cv-qualified types as output parameters.
This seems to fix it, but I'll finish testing it and submit it tomorrow:
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
--- Comment #4 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Hello.
>
> I support the patch, do you have a copyright agreement and can you send the
> patch to the GCC patches mailing list?
>
> One small nit I noticed:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95314
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c98bd673ef93836f03491201f1c63929ea429cd6
commit r11-668-gc98bd673ef93836f03491201f1c63929ea429cd6
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95369
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
This is not really about designated initializers; we wrongly reject this one
too:
struct S {
unsigned a;
unsigned b;
};
template struct X { };
void f()
{
X<{ 1u, 2u }> x;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
Bug ID: 95373
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in build_reference_type, at
tree.c:7942
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-27
CC|
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
