Since all computations in tree-object-size are now done in sizetype and
not HOST_WIDE_INT, comparisons with HOST_WIDE_INT based unknown and
initval would be incorrect. Instead, use the sizetype trees directly to
generate and evaluate initval and unknown size values.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103744
--- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #4)
> > The apparently related case:
> I think this is actually a separate bug. Could you open a new PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103761
Bug ID: 103761
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in exact_div, at poly-int.h:2239
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0
Known to work|
On 12/17/2021 9:10 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
---
gcc/config.gcc | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index c8824367b13..fe93a72a16c 100644
--- a/gcc/config.gcc
+++ b/gcc/config.gcc
@@ -252,6 +252,7 @@ case ${target} in
| cr16-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:43 PM HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
>
> Hi,
>This patch defines a pattern for mffscrni. If the RN is a constant, it can
> call
> gen_rs6000_mffscrni directly. The "rs6000-builtin-new.def" defines prototype
> for builtin arguments.
> The pattern "rs6000_set_fpscr_rn" is then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58002
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Ifort also produces:
>
> 420 420
I should say using -stand f03 and -stand f95.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58002
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Ifort also produces:
420 420
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49331
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> gfortran currently compiles http://www.fortran.com/iso_varying_string.f95
> with -std=f2003 without any error.
File does not exist any more :(.
(In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57079
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Something changed in GCC 8 and we get:
:
x_22 = __builtin_malloc (144);
if (x_22 == 0B)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
:
_gfortran_os_error (&"Allocation would exceed memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57611
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can't reproduce this even in GCC 4.9.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49592
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||5.5.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43837
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43172
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last
Hi FX,
thanks for the patch
> On 17 Dec 2021, at 22:23, FX wrote:
>
> The current GCC branch will become 12.1.0, which will be the stable version
> of GCC when the next macOS version is released. There are some places in GCC
> that don’t handle darwin22 as a version, so we need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88404
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77390
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
I'm tired of seeing
cp/parser.c:15923:55: warning: misspelled term 'decl' in format; use
'declaration' instead [-Wformat-diag]
cp/parser.c:15925:57: warning: misspelled term 'decl' in format; use
'declaration' instead [-Wformat-diag]
every time I compile cp/parser.c, which happens...a lot.
This fixes
gcc/cp/parser.c:4618:41: warning: narrowing conversion of '(char)(*(str +
((sizetype)i)))' from 'char' to 'unsigned char' [-Wnarrowing]
4618 | unsigned char s[3] = { '\'', str[i], '\'' };
|~^
Bootstrapped/regtested on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103649
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103649
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6afb8a68a9113897ccf39e40983e042ed90d7aed
commit r12-6052-g6afb8a68a9113897ccf39e40983e042ed90d7aed
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 02:33:01PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/17/21 13:14, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > @@ -28979,7 +28979,9 @@ cp_parser_std_attribute (cp_parser *parser, tree
> > attr_ns)
> > /* A GNU attribute that takes an identifier in parameter. */
> > attr_flag =
OK for release branches?
H.J.
---
Cherry-pick from LLVM release/13.x branch:
commit d96358a2819399a2abb60ad3b26444ab7b4409cf
Author: Michał Górny
Date: Mon Dec 13 22:28:26 2021 +0100
[compiler-rt] Increase kDlsymAllocPoolSize to fix test failures
Increase kDlsymAllocPoolSize on the
Snapshot gcc-10-20211217 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20211217/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103412
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:07:44PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Alternative patch:
>
Either patch fixes the problem and I'll offer
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.0
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66907
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55824
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.4
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103610
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103610
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1062d2b022575e2ab942236478029cd637f937a5
commit r9-9875-g1062d2b022575e2ab942236478029cd637f937a5
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103610
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 103260 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103260
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103610
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a28d6903677629c23bac53ff061eb80f22d51006
commit r10-10346-ga28d6903677629c23bac53ff061eb80f22d51006
Author: Harald Anlauf
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 02:53:47AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> Since all computations in tree-object-size are now done in sizetype and
> not HOST_WIDE_INT, comparisons after conversion to HOST_WIDE_INT would
> be incorrect. Instead, truncate unknown (object_size_type) to sizetype
> to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103260
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Since all computations in tree-object-size are now done in sizetype and
not HOST_WIDE_INT, comparisons after conversion to HOST_WIDE_INT would
be incorrect. Instead, truncate unknown (object_size_type) to sizetype
to compare with the computed size to evaluate if it is unknown.
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103759
--- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
I've posted a candidate fix:
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/20211217212347.72617-1-siddh...@gotplt.org/
Since all computations in tree-object-size are now done in sizetype and
not HOST_WIDE_INT, comparisons after conversion to HOST_WIDE_INT would
be incorrect. Instead, truncate unknown (object_size_type) to sizetype
to compare with the computed size to evaluate if it is unknown.
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103760
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103412
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Created attachment 52025 [details]
> Alternative implementation v2
>
> The diagnostic regression is easy to fix with a static assertion before
> calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103760
Bug ID: 103760
Summary: Invalid expression inside lambda inside compound
requirement causes an error instead of concept
satisfaction failure
Product: gcc
On 12/15/21 03:53, Matthias Kretz wrote:
OK for trunk? This fixes several modules.exp failures for me.
OK.
── ✂ ──
Code like
void swap() {
namespace __variant = __detail::__variant;
...
}
create a NAMESPACE_DECL where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92944
--- Comment #2 from Ed Catmur ---
Sorry, meant to link this:
https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2021/10/27/dont-reopen-namespace-std/
> On 17 Dec 2021, at 20:16, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
>> Don't you also need to add an fpclassify() macro? There's a
>>
>> checking for ISO C99 support in for C++98
>>
>> which checks whether math.h supplies (among others) fpclassify().
>
> We have a separate "fix" for a set of such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103681
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Resolution|INVALID
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:53 PM Eric Gallager wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > ---
> > gcc/config.gcc | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
> > index c8824367b13..fe93a72a16c 100644
> > ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #141 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 52027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52027=edit
CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #17 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #16)
> Created attachment 52026 [details]
> CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
Sorry, added comment to wrong PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 52026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52026=edit
CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
x-gnu
Configured with: ../../gcc-mainline/configure --prefix=/pkgs/gcc-mainline
--enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c --disable-multilib
--enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211217 (experimental) (GCC)
I'll a
On Linux/x86_64,
422f9eb7011b76c12ff00ffaee2bcc9cdddf16d5 is the first bad commit
commit 422f9eb7011b76c12ff00ffaee2bcc9cdddf16d5
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
Date: Fri Dec 17 07:07:18 2021 +0530
tree-object-size: Use trees and support negative offsets
caused
FAIL:
On Linux/x86_64,
79a89108dd352cd9288f5de35481b1280c7588a5 is the first bad commit
commit 79a89108dd352cd9288f5de35481b1280c7588a5
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
Date: Fri Dec 17 09:34:44 2021 +0530
__builtin_dynamic_object_size: Recognize builtin
caused
FAIL:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021, 19:14 Nikita Kniazev via Gcc, wrote:
> I am sorry I cannot find the backport policy in GCC.
See "changes appropriate for bug_fix releases"
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
I asked for a backport
> on the bug tracker but have not received any answer.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95949
--- Comment #11 from Julian Sikorski ---
I can still reproduce this with mame master
(0b418d65bae66baa9f334c6daa6dcb4148909f7f) and mingw-w64-x86_64-gcc 11.2.0-5.
On 12/18/21 00:59, David Edelsohn wrote:
Siddhesh,
This patch series seems to have caused testsuite regressions for
memcpy-chk, etc. in 32 bit mode (i386, x86-64 -m32 and -mx32, AIX 32
bit).
I have opened PR 103759.
Thanks, I've assigned it to myself. I'll take a look.
Siddhesh
---
htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html
index b1c88670..c69b301e 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-12/changes.html
@@ -66,6 +66,10 @@ a work-in-progress.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103759
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On 12/17/21 13:14, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:06:43PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/16/21 19:52, Marek Polacek wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wno-attributes-6.c
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* PR c/103649 */
+/* { dg-do compile { target { c || c++11 } } }
Siddhesh,
This patch series seems to have caused testsuite regressions for
memcpy-chk, etc. in 32 bit mode (i386, x86-64 -m32 and -mx32, AIX 32
bit).
I have opened PR 103759.
Thanks, David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103759
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103759
Bug ID: 103759
Summary: [12 Regression] memcpy-chk failure for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hi again Rasmus,
> On 17 Dec 2021, at 14:03, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
> On 17/12/2021 13.10, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The attached patch adds a fixincludes add for VxWorks
>> to add missing FP_ constant definition to math.h, intended
>> for old versions of the kernel math.h
I am sorry I cannot find the backport policy in GCC. I asked for a backport
on the bug tracker but have not received any answer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37846c42f1f5ac4d9ba190d49c4373673c89c8b5 /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92145
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> ---
> gcc/config.gcc | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
> index c8824367b13..fe93a72a16c 100644
> --- a/gcc/config.gcc
> +++ b/gcc/config.gcc
> @@ -252,6 +252,7 @@ case ${target} in
>
Hi!
On 12/17/21 11:36 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Make the darn testcases work (and be tested) in 32-bit mode as well.
> They used to ICE, but they no longer do.
>
>
> 2021-12-17 Segher Boessenkool
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> PR target/103624
> * gcc.target/powerpc/darn-0.c: Remove
Hi!
On 12/17/21 11:36 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> The builtins now all return "long". The patterns have :GPR as the
> output mode, so they can be 32-bit as well (the instruction makes sense
> in 32 bit just fine). The builtins expand to the DImode version
> normally, but to the SImode if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103749
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:06:43PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/16/21 19:52, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wno-attributes-6.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> > +/* PR c/103649 */
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { c || c++11 } } } */
> > +/* {
> On 17 Dec 2021, at 16:17, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
>> In this instance, it's simple enough to be quoted directly:
>
> You may want to look into git send-email :-)
Eh, indeed.
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr97142.c
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr97142.c
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103749
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fae016862631da70e6482fe3173a111248f8b9bc
commit r12-6049-gfae016862631da70e6482fe3173a111248f8b9bc
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/16/21 17:36, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > + if (DECL_CLASS_TEMPLATE_P (decl)
> > + && !template_header_p
> > + && how == TAG_how::CURRENT_ONLY)
> > +{
> > + error ("%qD was declared as template but no template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102051
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52024|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103624
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
Make the darn testcases work (and be tested) in 32-bit mode as well.
They used to ICE, but they no longer do.
2021-12-17 Segher Boessenkool
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/103624
* gcc.target/powerpc/darn-0.c: Remove target clause.
* gcc.target/powerpc/darn-1.c: Remove target
The builtins now all return "long". The patterns have :GPR as the
output mode, so they can be 32-bit as well (the instruction makes sense
in 32 bit just fine). The builtins expand to the DImode version
normally, but to the SImode if {32bit} is true.
2021-12-17 Segher Boessenkool
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103624
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87ae8d7613a8b15d0d729b38ffd49153f1314799
commit r12-6048-g87ae8d7613a8b15d0d729b38ffd49153f1314799
Author: Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103624
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7194397966e6a007cee42360f96834377c3121a4
commit r12-6047-g7194397966e6a007cee42360f96834377c3121a4
Author: Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Incidentally, this
error ("% invalid in condition");
in cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq should be adjusted as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
Bug ID: 103758
Summary: bogus warning: misspelled term 'decl' in format; use
'declaration' instead [-Wformat-diag]
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
--- Comment #5 from Egor Pugin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Sadly it looks like modules are no where near prime time.
Seems so.
I set up my tooling and trying to play with them, but there are a lot of
issues.
Does someone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103734
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot
Richard Earnshaw writes:
> On 17/12/2021 15:52, Andrea Corallo wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> thanks for reviewing! Some comments inline.
>> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>>> On 05/11/2021 08:52, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi all,
this patch enables address return signature and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 52024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52024=edit
Alternative implementation
This seems like a much simpler approach.
This causes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103358
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't know what the "right" behaviour is. I don't think any compiler except
GCC actually implements 2137, as it causes problems. I'm not even sure if this
is a case where 2137 applies!
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
