https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
I also cannot reproduce it anymore w/ gcc-8.0.0-alpha20170806 snapshot. It must
be fixed or made latent some time in between.
% powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-8.0.0-alpha20170806 -Q --help=target | grep -e
On 09/08/17 06:25, Michael Collison wrote:
> Because the comment (for example) in g+=.dg/ext/packed8.C says
>
> // NOTE: This test assumes packed structure layout differs from unpacked
> // structure layout. This isn't true, e.g., with the default
> // arm-none-elf options.
>
> If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #3 from Volker Wehrs ---
Why is sync() (alias fflush()) called in sys_open(FILE*,...) at all?
1. It is not called in sys_open(int,...)
2. Both sys_open() functions are called in the constructor of stdio_filebuf
_only_.
So, as
Richard Biener writes:
> On August 8, 2017 7:36:35 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>Richard Sandiford writes:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On August 8, 2017 6:38:30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also -Wmissing-declarations helps here to make sure you have a declaration
before an external definition. It will warn as you don't have a declaration for
testarg function in testarg.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
Bug ID: 81777
Summary: Compiler doesn't detect wrong function declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81777
--- Comment #1 from jsiebert at poczta dot wp.pl ---
file test.c:
#include "testarg.h"
int main(void)
{
testarg();
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:37:28PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> Jason said (for the C++ part of the patch):
> > About passing parser in or not, I'm happy with the current approach;
> > adding things to the stack isn't free in a highly recursive program
> > like GCC.
> (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
Yeah, I have more or less the same patch about to be bootstrapped.
201 - 212 of 212 matches
Mail list logo