https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94271
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5)
> Unfortunately, apart from PR testsuite/94334, the patch introduced another
> failure:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr81213-2.c (test for excess errors)
>
> Excess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6730f06420106af01e26414f046626b5292565d
commit r10-7396-gd6730f06420106af01e26414f046626b5292565d
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94337
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Why not having a level with no false positives? This would avoid to disable the
warning globally.
IMHO, using it when a union is involved is likely to generate false positives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94281
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10ea09ee846eaa345161a3a3f519b3780d6101fa
commit r10-7395-g10ea09ee846eaa345161a3a3f519b3780d6101fa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94271
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
>
> --- Comment #14 from Kewen Lin ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94338
--- Comment #1 from huaixin chang ---
I have tested on x86_64 with gcc version 4.8.5 20150623,
and also arm with gcc version 9.2.1 20190812.
They behaves the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
--- Comment #14 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
>
> + /* Find all SSA NAMEs in stmts which is defined in current loop,
> create
> +PHIs for them, and replace them with phi results accordingly. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94338
Bug ID: 94338
Summary: struct member alignment is not carried over to
alignment of struct variable
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
--- Comment #4 from Romain Geissler ---
Thanks Richard.
Indeed, beyond the false positive described in this bug, our whole code that
implement "relative pointer" is I think quite hacky and not very compiler
friendly (around alignment, aliasing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94333
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81349
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dab932d1519ba07fb4c49e6849ee7ceb02c0d603
commit r10-7394-gdab932d1519ba07fb4c49e6849ee7ceb02c0d603
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #12)
> Created attachment 48122 [details]
> ppc64le tested patch
>
> Thanks Richi!
>
> A patch draft attached to ensure on the right track, also
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, far from it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #37 from Martin Liška ---
@Jakub: Can we close it? Or do you plan any other patch for it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94272
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a1706f63a2024a5c2d878f2efeb8d198214542f
commit r10-7393-g5a1706f63a2024a5c2d878f2efeb8d198214542f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #36 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9708ca2be40399d6266bc85c99e085e3fe27a809
commit r10-7392-g9708ca2be40399d6266bc85c99e085e3fe27a809
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94269
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d21dff5b4fee51ae432143065bededfc763dc344
commit r10-7391-gd21dff5b4fee51ae432143065bededfc763dc344
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94337
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The warning only looks at the single expression it quotes which isn't really
enough to discover you are doing right. It tries to be helpful - if you know
better then disable the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
You should be using (intptr_t)t - (intptr_t)this when computing the relative
pointer, not sure if that makes a difference but pointer difference between
pointers to different objects invokes undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93484
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|other
101 - 134 of 134 matches
Mail list logo