Snapshot gcc-9-20180812 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20180812/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision
On 08/13/2018 03:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 15:59, zerons wrote:
Should gcc give it an error to prevent a structure from converting to
char* in functions printf/fprintf?
Your question is inappropriate on this mailing list, please use
gcc-help next time. See
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 15:59, zerons wrote:
> Should gcc give it an error to prevent a structure from converting to
> char* in functions printf/fprintf?
Your question is inappropriate on this mailing list, please use
gcc-help next time. See https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
Did you try compiling
All:
I've been hacking with version 7.2.0 of gcc trying to adapt some old md
files that I've got to this newer gcc. I've been getting errors from the
dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr() function in dwarf2cfi.c line 1790 calling
gcc_unreachable(). The expression being processed is a SET. The src
Hi all,
As we know, gcc would give us an error message when we do this:
`struct _test a; char *s = a;`;
However, when we use this in printf/fprintf, it gets wired.
```c
#include
struct _test {
char name[256];
};
struct _test tests[100];
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Hello, everyone.
Sorry to disturb you, but this question confused me several days, I have
searched the GCC source code cannot find the answers.
I know we can distinguish the different DECL tree using DECL_UID in a
translation unit. But when in LTO mode, lto1 combine some input fat object
files.
On August 12, 2018 12:30:26 PM GMT+02:00, zet wrote:
>Hello, everyone.
>Sorry to disturb you, but this question confused me several days, I
>have
>searched the GCC source code cannot find the answers.
>
>I know we can distinguish the different DECL tree using DECL_UID in a
>translation unit. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86925
Bug ID: 86925
Summary: ice in get_predictor_value, at pre dict.c:2551
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86925
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is:
typedef enum { a } b;
d() {
b c;
do
if (__builtin_expect(({
int e;
if (c == a)
e = 1;
Hi,
I'd like to ping for this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01800.html
I will add a new BZ entry for the (minor) regression this patch
introduces in gcc.dg/strlenopt-49.c and assign it to myself.
Thanks
Bernd.
On 07/29/18 12:56, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86906
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86906
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Aug 12 10:55:13 2018
New Revision: 263494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263494=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-08-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/86906
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86906
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Aug 12 15:35:53 2018
New Revision: 263498
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263498=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-08-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/86906
* resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86923
Bug ID: 86923
Summary: Missed optimization performing consecutive integer
sum, loop not removed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> On Samstag, 11. August 2018 11:18:39 CEST Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:59:26AM +0200, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>> > +/* A subroutine of ix86_expand_vec_perm_builtin_1. Try to implement D
>> > + using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86910
--- Comment #6 from Steffen Schuemann ---
Yeah, I totally understand, that if the behaviour of create_directories was in
conformance to the resolution to that defect, you don't feel like changing
anything. And I definitely don't want to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86922
Bug ID: 86922
Summary: Invoking templated PTMF on subclass gives false
strict-aliasing warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86472
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
I have cast around for a better way to fix this bug but have not come
up with anything. Although brute force, the patch does the job. The
testcase has been extended to include a MODULE PROCEDURE in a
submodule, which I think must have been the contributor's original
intention.
Bootstrapped and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31237
Bug 31237 depends on bug 66679, which changed state.
Bug 66679 Summary: [OOP] ICE with class(*) and transfer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66679
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66679
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66679
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Aug 12 17:19:09 2018
New Revision: 263499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263499=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-08-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/66679
* trans-intrinsic.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86924
Bug ID: 86924
Summary: tree-slp-vectorize may create unaligned memory access,
causing segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-08-12 8:10 AM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> This is the patch I came up with. What do you think?
Did you check that "make check" in the fixincludes build directory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86925
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #16 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44529
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44529=edit
stdlib.h long_double patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #17 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #16)
> Created attachment 44529 [details]
> stdlib.h long_double patch
This is the patch I came up with. What do you think?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #19 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #18)
> On 2018-08-12 8:10 AM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> > This is the patch I came up with. What do you think?
>
> Did you check that "make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86918
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r223304. With r223301, there's an error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71424
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86594
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
Bug ID: 86928
Summary: ICE in compute_live, at sel-sched.c:3097
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86918
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86918
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84353
--- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Getting more testcase for this is nice though.
int
dt (__int128 gg, int sn, int *b2)
{
int wt = 0, f4 = 0;
while (wt < sn)
{
f4 = !!(gg * 2 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82798
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Julien ÉLIE from comment #2)
> Other points:
>
> 6/ -Wsuggest-final-types and -Wsuggest-final-methods should be mentioned for
> C++ (and maybe Objective-C++) only.
>
> 7/ -Wc++11-compat and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86916
--- Comment #4 from Roger Mc Murtrie ---
Simon Wright has determined the problem and notes that GNAT has
failed to recognise the actual problem.
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.ada/MdywAlMPQms)
The problem is in the packages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86921
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86910
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Steffen Schuemann from comment #6)
> And just for the fun of it, I used some time to double check the source of
> libc++ and compiled myself a clang-8 from HEAD to run my tests with that one
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85457
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79092
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||info at thinkmeta dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r261121.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
/root-gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180812 (experimental) [trunk revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85457
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Reshetnikov ---
Note: the error disappears if the variable `f` is not declared `constexpr`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-07-20 00:00:00 |2018-8-12
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86925
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 85160, which changed state.
Bug 85160 Summary: GCC generates mvn/and instructions instead of bic on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85160
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
Bug ID: 86926
Summary: [Regression] ICE for a recursive generic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81718
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
>
> I would have to rebuild my gcc with debug info to get a better backtrace.
So I tried doing that but it crashed my debugger; I might need to open a
separate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86921
Bug ID: 86921
Summary: do not remove input in bash
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86906
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
55 matches
Mail list logo
