https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #9 from Mukund Sivaraman ---
Hi Jakub, Markus
We discussed this during our daily standup call today, and there are two
points we'd like to make:
1. The qsort() defintion in C99 doesn't explicitly state that base must
not be NULL, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61244
Bug ID: 61244
Summary: gccgo: ICE in write_specific_type_functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
,lto,fortran
-enable-gold=yes --enable-lto --with-gmp-lib=/usr/local/lib64
--with-mpfr-lib=/usr/local/lib64 -with-mpc-lib=/usr/local/lib64
--enable-cloog-backend=isl --with-cloog=/usr/local
--with-ppl-lib=/usr/local/lib64 -enable-libitm -disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 2014
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #3 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
I can not reproduce gcc.dg/guality/pr43051-1.c fail with options
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -m32 -mtune=core2
What a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61246
Bug ID: 61246
Summary: gccgo: ICE in do_determine_types [GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61246
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Created attachment 32825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32825&action=edit
reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61247
Bug ID: 61247
Summary: vectorization fails if conversion from unsigned int to
signed int is involved
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61247
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||LP64
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> If you believe the nonnull attribute on qsort is incorrect, then you should
> report that as glibc bug, not gcc bug, the prototype is provided by glibc.
> The m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> It is not incorrect as the C standard says this about qsort:
> nmemb can have the value zero on a call to that function; the comparison
> function is not calle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #19 from Rich Felker ---
Here is the commit that seems to have introduced the bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=df8d3e8981a99e264b49876f0f5064bdb30ac981
In the function ctor_for_folding, the following erroneous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61221
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 20 08:16:13 2014
New Revision: 210633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210633&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-20 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61221
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61245
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61248
Bug ID: 61248
Summary: gccgo: spurious "error: too many arguments" [GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61245
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #20 from Rich Felker ---
On further investigation, it looks like the code I cited deals with strong
aliases as well as weak ones, and in the strong alias case, the strong folding
behavior might be desirable. A better fix seems to be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61241
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61240
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue May 20 08:37:50 2014
New Revision: 210635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-05-20 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Backport from mainline r210
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61237
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Well, '-foo (2, 3)' _has_ to be executed before the call to foo. line-numbers
are a bad representation for C sequence point rules.
I would say this is not a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> It is not incorrect as the C standard says this about qsort:
> nmemb can have the value zero on a call to that function; the comparison
> function is not called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #14 from Mukund Sivaraman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> But the compiler doesn't know there that x is NULL. The compiler sees a
See comment #3. It generates 2 codepaths, one where (nalloc == 0) and another
where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Mukund Sivaraman from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > But the compiler doesn't know there that x is NULL. The compiler sees a
>
> See comment #3. It generates 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61249
Bug ID: 61249
Summary: _mm_frcz_ss, _mm_frcz_sd: __builtin_ia32_vfrczss,
__builtin_ia32_vfrczsd require 2 arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Adding -Wall to the dg-options let the test succeed (in line with the gfortran
manual, see comment 21):
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/wextra_1.f2012-10-21
13:06:18.0 +0200
+++ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #16 from Mukund Sivaraman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > At the very least, if it is possible to detect that the pointer is NULL by
> > static analysis and it is being passed to a function that has the notnull
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
Bug ID: 61250
Summary: Random pch failures on x86_64-apple-darwin13.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61249
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Michael Tautschnig from comment #0)
> Looking at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built-in-Functions.html on
> the one hand and AMD's "AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual
> Volume 6: 128-B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #23)
> Adding -Wall to the dg-options let the test succeed (in line with the
> gfortran manual, see comment 21):
This is enough to make the test pass, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61249
--- Comment #2 from Michael Tautschnig ---
Thanks a lot for your quick reply.
> > Yet r205495 changed _mm_frcz_ss/_mm_frcz_sd so that only a single argument
> > is passed to the __builtin_ia32_vfrczss/vfrczsd calls.
> You should not use __built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61195
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
is test/compile sufficient, or do you have to run it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #4 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
> is test/compile sufficient, or do you have to run it?
Just compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61251
Bug ID: 61251
Summary: Hang in write from inside a function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Bug ID: 61252
Summary: Invalid code produced for omp simd reduction(min:var)
where var is reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
--- Comment #2 from hazeman11 at gmail dot com ---
Yep sorry for so "stupid" example. I've reduced it to bare minimum without
looking whether it does make sense. Ofcourse something like
maxstep = std::min(std::min(a0[i],a1[i]),maxstep);
would ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61253
Bug ID: 61253
Summary: gccgo: spurious "error: expected '<-' or '='"
[GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61223
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
--- Comment #3 from hazeman11 at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32827&action=edit
corrected minimal example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 13:30:40 2014
New Revision: 210642
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58664
* typeck2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61254
Bug ID: 61254
Summary: gccgo: spurious "error: slice end must be integer"
[GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61255
Bug ID: 61255
Summary: gccgo: spurious "error: argument 2 has incompatible
type" [GoSmith]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30617
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter.machon at arcor dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61251
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61241
--- Comment #4 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Can you please send the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org including a
> ChangeLog
Done! Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61210
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue May 20 14:18:44 2014
New Revision: 210645
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210645&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/
PR bootstrap/61210
* pt.c (tsubst_copy, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61256
Bug ID: 61256
Summary: [4.10 regression] Building spec2000/252.eon with LTO
got a compfail after r210522
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44557
--- Comment #10 from Chung-Lin Tang ---
The ICE still happens under -mno-lra (and using reload).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61257
Bug ID: 61257
Summary: configure should check if sys/sdt.h is usable, not
just checking the existance of the header
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60373
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 15:16:48 2014
New Revision: 210646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60373
* decl.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60969
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60373
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 32828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32828&action=edit
Test case that errors out with invalid assembly on big-endian
[bergner@makalu-lp1 BUGS]$
/home/bergner/gcc/bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
I meant to add that the issue I'm seeing on BE is due to the same patch that
Matthias is having a problem with, namely 210520 (trunk) 210519 (4.9).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43113
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Klose ---
on powerpc64le, the test passes with both the stage2 and stage3 compilers of
the problematic build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61243
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61201
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61223
--- Comment #2 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Tue May 20 17:25:26 2014
New Revision: 210650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-20 Alexey Merzlyakov
PR libstdc++/61223
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Even with the patch, I still get (using -m32 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60758
--- Comment #10 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Tue May 20 17:25:26 2014
New Revision: 210650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-20 Alexey Merzlyakov
PR libstdc++/61223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61201
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
Ah, now that's a good answer. Thanks, Eric.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Even with the patch, I still get (using -m32 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
Confirmed, I have overlooked this failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61187
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61258
Bug ID: 61258
Summary: gccgo: assertion failure go-map-delete.c:37
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61259
Bug ID: 61259
Summary: Spurious "ISO C++ forbids zero-size array" warning
with -pedantic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61208
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Patch pending review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01638.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
--- Comment #14 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 19:20:59 2014
New Revision: 210653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58753
PR c++/58
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 19:20:59 2014
New Revision: 210653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58753
PR c++/589
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 20 19:20:59 2014
New Revision: 210653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-05-20 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58753
PR c++/589
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58753, which changed state.
Bug 58753 Summary: Brace-initializing a vector with a direct-initialization
NSDMI doesn't work in a template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58753
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58930, which changed state.
Bug 58930 Summary: [C++11] Bogus error: converting to ... from initializer list
would use explicit constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60463
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #21 from Rich Felker ---
Created attachment 32830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32830&action=edit
proposed patch
patch is generated against the revision that introduced this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #8 from Paul Eggert ---
Comment on attachment 32831
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32831
Clarify documentation for __attribute__ ((malloc)).
>Index: gcc/ChangeLog
>===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32831|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
--- Comment #10 from Rich Felker ---
I don't see how it's at all helpful for GCC to assume that memory obtained by
__attribute__((__malloc__)) functions does not contain pointers to anything
that existed before the call. This assumption only aids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61243
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue May 20 21:24:37 2014
New Revision: 210658
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210658&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/61243
* emit-rtl.c (emit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61243
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60063
Petr Machata changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmachata at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
