https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
--- Comment #5 from mgsergio ---
And what about the inconsistency with compilation error on
int main() {
int b{2.3};
}
In that case an error is generated.
And if I use
template
inline T narrowing_check(U const u)
{
return {u};
}
I get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because int b{2.3} absolutely definitely loses precision, and since it's a
constant you can just fix the code.
For {u} the compiler doesn't know whether it really narrows or not, since it
depends on un tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69865
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> weird:
> If I add -std=c++14 (or any other c++ version, including -ansi)
> to the command line, it works.
As documented in the manual:
-trigraphs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69865
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> > weird:
> > If I add -std=c++14 (or any other c++ version, including -ansi)
> > to the command line, it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37738&action=edit
gcc6-pr69851.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69625
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Feb 19 10:15:43 2016
New Revision: 233546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233546&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: PR 69625: Add test case
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69870
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69064
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwmwalrus at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69871
Bug ID: 69871
Summary: Type punned structs returned by value optimized poorly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69706
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm leaning towards fixing both the ICE and the ABI bug.
OK, let's do that for GCC 6 then and document it, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression |middle-end
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37739&action=edit
gcc6-pr69838.patch
Untested fix. Don't have ada set up on s390{,x}, so can just test this on
x86_64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Or use -pedantic-errors.
>
> I find it a bit ironic that Clang does inform the user when something is
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69872
Bug ID: 69872
Summary: Wnarrowing note without warning/errror
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, documentation,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > Because int b{2.3} absolutely definitely loses precision, and since it's a
> > constant you can just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> > * Create a new function in diagnostic.c, e.g.,
> >
> > extern diagnostic_t pederror (location_t, int, const char *, ...)
> > ATTRIBUTE_GCC_D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69873
Bug ID: 69873
Summary: Vectorizer fails to emit runtime profitability check
if no peeling/versioning is done
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69873
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
ICC decides to have a cut-off at 8 iterations, having an unrolled vectorized
iteration
..B1.4: # Preds ..B1.4 ..B1.3
addl $8, %eax #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66337
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*-* |powerpc*-*-*
--- Comment #7 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69820
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 13:42:38 2016
New Revision: 233558
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233558&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69820
* config/i386/sse.md (VI_512): Only inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69820
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
> I'm actually going to reopen this to propose some improvements that perhaps
> someone would decide to tackle as easy hacks:
>
> * Document that -Wnarrow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
With the patch I get an Ice with -m31:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP .../build/gcc/xgcc -B.../build/gcc/
.../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-pr45230-1.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret
-fdiagnostics-color=never -O2 -fgra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #7)
> With the patch I get an Ice with -m31:
>
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP .../build/gcc/xgcc -B.../build/gcc/
> .../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-pr45230-1.c -fno-diagno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt ---
I think I've already tested this commit without the patch and did not get that
Ice, but maybe my memory fails me. I'm just running the test suite again with
the commit reverted to make sure ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #7)
> With the patch I get an Ice with -m31:
>
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP .../build/gcc/xgcc -B.../build/gcc/
> .../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-pr45230-1.c -fno-diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Bug ID: 69874
Summary: Program crashes when an exception is thrown to second
base class reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: bloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt ---
If that is unrelated, the patch does not cause any regressions on a biarch
build. Sould I also test it in a 31-bit changeroot?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #12 from Dominik Vogt ---
(The test just finished; the Ice is present without the patch too.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
Bug ID: 69875
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong barrier placement for
64-bit atomic loads on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Though adding candidate with offset stripped from base helps this case, it
causes other regressions which I need to understand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 37741
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37741&action=edit
Patch draft
I've tried to sketch-up a simple patch that can do that.
As the original source of the modified code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67767
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 16:01:50 2016
New Revision: 233560
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233560&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67767
* parser.c (cp_parser_std_attribute_spec_seq)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69850
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 16:02:51 2016
New Revision: 233561
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233561&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69850
* init.c (build_vec_delete_1): Set TREE_NO_W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69876
Bug ID: 69876
Summary: Offloaded code: missing -Wuninitialized diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69876
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure. But there is the other case, say
int x;
#pragma omp target defaultmap(tofrom: scalar) // explicit or implicit
map(tofrom:x)
{
x = 6;
}
This is similar to shared clause on parallel or task e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69858
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 16:25:58 2016
New Revision: 233562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/69838
* lra.c (lra_process_new_insns): If n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01349.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Please provide the information requested by https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
Mainly which target is this on? Since there is a self contained example
already in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68948
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Fri Feb 19 17:04:29 2016
New Revision: 233563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adjust fix PR c++/68948
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/68948
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68948
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x777d50d8 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:54
54return INLINE_SYSCALL (tgkill, 3, pid, selftid, sig);
(gdb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69874
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #25 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69573
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Feb 19 18:37:40 2016
New Revision: 233564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/69573 - FAIL: gcc.dg/pr61053.c (test for excess errors)
Tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69573
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 19:11:58 2016
New Revision: 233566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69851
* expr.c (store_field): Don't use bit-field p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69850
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 19:16:31 2016
New Revision: 233568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69850
* rtti.c (ifnonnull): Set TREE_NO_WARNING on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68679
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68585
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877
Bug ID: 69877
Summary: Problem with std::basic_ios::setstate()
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69864
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01326.html
Committed to trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877
--- Comment #1 from Leo Carreon ---
In addition, if I comment out the line:
vStream.exceptions(std::ios_base::badbit);
The executable does not core dump.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lcarreon at bigpond dot net.au
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69877
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Leo Carreon from comment #1)
> In addition, if I comment out the line:
>
> vStream.exceptions(std::ios_base::badbit);
>
> The executable does not core dump.
Yes, obviously.
If you don't ask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69878
Bug ID: 69878
Summary: GCC produces pessimal assembly for C11 atomic
increments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879
Bug ID: 69879
Summary: Create a pointer to the default operator new and
delete
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69826
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 22:12:54 2016
New Revision: 233571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69826
* c-pragma.c (c_pp_lookup_pragma): Handle PRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69826
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 22:18:38 2016
New Revision: 233573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233573&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/69805
* gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC, GOMP_SELF_SPEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at bitbashing dot io
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69878
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69865
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Feb 19 22:22:04 2016
New Revision: 233574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
2016-02-19 Bernd Edlinger
PR c++/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69868
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69865
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272
--- Comment #6 from Phil Bouchard ---
Also please make sure the pointer arguments are passed by reference and not by
value. This would ensure we could use our own smart pointers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
Bug ID: 69880
Summary: Linking Windows resources + implicit
'default-manifest.o' creates bad .exe
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69866
--- Comment #3 from acrsofter at gmail dot com ---
reproduce steps:
[foo.c]
int _umh(int i)
{
return i+1;
}
int weaks(int i) __attribute__((weak, alias("_umh")));
int main()
{
return weaks(10);
}
[bar.c]
int weaks(int i)
{
return i+1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> r233159 was reverted in r233356. Does this problem still happen?
Yes, problem is still there, because ...
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> I thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Feb 20 04:31:16 2016
New Revision: 233579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69743
* call.c (remaining_arguments): No longer sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Feb 20 04:31:16 2016
New Revision: 233579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69743
* call.c (remaining_arguments): No longer sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69743
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
