https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, ysrumyan at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
>
> --- Comment #23 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
> OK. I will try to prepare the second par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57745
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160608 (experimental) [trunk revision 237199] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
0
$ gcc-6.1 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
0
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -fno-tree-vrp small.c; ./a.out
0
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
$ ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
Benda Xu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||heroxbd at sohu dot com
--- Comment #18 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This happens because of
/* Find the smallest nice mode to use. */
for (mode = GET_CLASS_NARROWEST_MODE (MODE_INT); mode != VOIDmode;
mode = GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (mode))
if (GET_MODE_BITSI
: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160608 (experimental) [trunk revision 237196] (GCC)
$
$ g++-6.1 -c small.cpp
small.cpp:4:18: error: duplicate base type ‘C’ invalid
struct D : C, B, C
-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160608 (experimental) [trunk revision 237196] (GCC)
$
$ g++-4.8 -Os -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57745
--- Comment #3 from Richard Smith ---
Yes, this is now fixed; the remaining difference is a defect in the standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71310
--- Comment #3 from Anton Blanchard ---
Another case found in the kernel:
struct mmu_gather {
long end;
int fullmm : 1;
};
void __tlb_reset_range(struct mmu_gather *p1)
{
if (p1->fullmm)
p1->end = 0;
}
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71463
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well I think the preprocessed source changes between -O0 and -O1 which is why
there is a difference there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71463
Bug ID: 71463
Summary: "ignoring attributes on template argument" in -O1 and
above
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48116
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic, easyhack|documentation
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #12 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #11)
> 5.3 has the bug I mentioned above. It makes the pragmas believe that, for
> this warning, the location is at the end of the file, which is after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
5.3 has the bug I mentioned above. It makes the pragmas believe that, for
this warning, the location is at the end of the file, which is after the
pop. Perhaps you can trick gcc by placing another pra
/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160608 (experimental) [trunk revision 237212] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O3 abc.c
abc.c: In function ‘fn1’:
abc.c:3:6: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
void fn1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #10 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
$ cat gcc_unused_variable.h
class Foo
{
public:
static bool init();
};
static bool FooInit = Foo::init();
$ cat gcc_unused_variable.cpp
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70507
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 19:03:17 2016
New Revision: 237238
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237238&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70507
PR c/68120
* builtins.def (BUILT_IN_A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68120
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 19:03:17 2016
New Revision: 237238
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237238&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70507
PR c/68120
* builtins.def (BUILT_IN_A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #8)
> That testcase probably doesn't verify the fix for pragma since, as you said,
> the warning does not appear in 6.1 in the first place.
I verified it with 5.3.0. Y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #8 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
>
> In your testcase, this works just fine:
That testcase probably doesn't verify the fix for pragma since, as you said,
the warning does not appear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
Michael Weiser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael at weiser dot
dinsnail.net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
Michael Weiser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71461
Bug ID: 71461
Summary: missed optimization in conditional assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 18:05:38 2016
New Revision: 237234
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237234&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71442
* pt.c (tsubst_copy): Only set TREE_USED on D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 18:00:30 2016
New Revision: 237233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71442
* pt.c (tsubst_copy): Only set TREE_USED on D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71442
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 17:57:30 2016
New Revision: 237232
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71442
* pt.c (tsubst_copy): Only set TREE_USED on D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56831
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71460
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> - padding in long double is not copied. Probably ok (in the same way as
> padding
> in substructures is not always copied);
Yes, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57484
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71460
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is really a dup of bug 57484. The problem is x87 related and
there is not much to be done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> Also, I'll add that the warning cannot be silenced with a #pragma, so I
> can't, for example, disable it for libresiprocate headers and leave it
> enabled for my code.
I think either Paolo or me fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71416
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #6 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> I understand that and agree that there is a set of use cases where users
> don't expect a warning. There is also another set of cases where a warning
> wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71459
Bug ID: 71459
Summary: ICE writing to a string-initialized local array in a
constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
&&
./a.out
Floating point exception
--
gcc version: gcc (GCC) 7.0.0 20160608 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71416
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-06-06 00:00:00 |2016-6-8
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71458
Bug ID: 71458
Summary: ICE with -fsanitize=bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I understand that and agree that there is a set of use cases where users don't
expect a warning. There is also another set of cases where a warning would be
helpful: If the unused variable in the submitted t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #4 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> I just happened to be looking into this report and it's not clear to me
> whether or not the warning should be expected in this case. The
> documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 71372 which has already been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 67824, which changed state.
Bug 67824 Summary: constexpr char* compare operations not constexpr, but char[]
operations ARE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67824
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71457
Bug ID: 71457
Summary: valid pointer plus conversion to bool rejected in
constexpr context
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67824
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erich.keane at intel dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Michael Weiser from comment #5)
> I think it's well estabilished and verified by now that this is an
> avr-target-specific regression (which I think is what Richard meant).
Well, "avr-specifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71402
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
For reference, I opened bug 71456 for the problems I noted in comment #2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71456
Bug ID: 71456
Summary: missing -Wunused-variable on a static global
initialized with another
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71455
Bug ID: 71455
Summary: On files with many functions, gcc 4.8.3 is much slower
than v4.4.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #10 from Adhemerval Zanella
---
I think add versioned symbols in libsanitizer seems feasible with current
supported platforms and seems to be the more complete fix. I will check on
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
--- Comment #23 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
OK. I will try to prepare the second part of patch.
Few comments about vect-simd-clone-5.c test failure.
1. This loop is marked with safelen=MAX_INT.
2. It contains the following stmt's:
D.3301 = foo.simdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71337
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59093
--- Comment #11 from Matt Thompson ---
Bug still present in GCC 6.1.0:
(907) $ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.1.0
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> That said, I wonder if it is ok that we don't reject clear out of bound
> POINTER_PLUS_EXPR in constexprs, like:
> static constexpr const char foo[] = "foo";
> sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The thing is that programs or libraries compiled/linked against glibc 2.24+
might contain garbage in the high 32 bits of those values.
So using e.g. kernel APIs directly in the wrappers will misbehave and so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
>
> --- Comment #15 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
> Thanks for the sugg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, yyc1992 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
>
> --- Comment #7 from Yichao Yu ---
> If I add `-fvariable-expansion-in-unroller` (omg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #8 from Adhemerval Zanella
---
Indeed I did not take in consideration the versioned issue with interposed
wrapper mainly because the idea of the patch was to fix the static compile
asserts against newer glibc. I see the runtime issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 61194, which changed state.
Bug 61194 Summary: [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] vectorization failed with
"bit-precision arithmetic not supported" even if conversion to int is requested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54939
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
With AVX2 we indeed generate
.L4:
vmovupd (%rdx,%rax), %ymm3
addl$1, %r9d
vpermpd $177, %ymm3, %ymm4
vmovapd %ymm3, %ymm2
vmulpd %ymm6, %ymm4, %ymm4
vfms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54939
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So we now would vectorize this but compute the SLP vectorization as never
profitable. Generated code with -fno-vect-cost-model (-Ofast -march=corei7):
.L4:
movupd (%rdx,%rax), %xmm0
movapd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68558
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 8 13:28:21 2016
New Revision: 237216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68558
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 68558, which changed state.
Bug 68558 Summary: Fails to SLP loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68558
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
--- Comment #5 from Michael Weiser ---
I think it's well estabilished and verified by now that this is an
avr-target-specific regression (which I think is what Richard meant). Is
anybody looking into this? Is more information needed? Can I do any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71452
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 8 13:11:43 2016
New Revision: 237214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71452
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6/7 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Forgot to mention that number of instructions is on 10% more 632 vs 702 for
spills into vector registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71428
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
*** Bug 71427 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71427
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71448
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 8 12:57:26 2016
New Revision: 237212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71448
* fold-const.c (fold_comparison): Handle CONS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71427
Bug ID: 71427
Summary: [7 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-tree-forwprop
(breaks in the .bswap dump)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71451
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
Bernhard Heckel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49475
Bernhard Heckel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.heckel at intel dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Heckel ---
Created attachment 38661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38661&action=edit
Type extend, source example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71454
Bug ID: 71454
Summary: [oop] extend type, missing relationship to baseclass
in DWARF
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71413
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Wed Jun 8 11:41:54 2016
New Revision: 237208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/71432
PR ada/71413
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71432
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Wed Jun 8 11:41:54 2016
New Revision: 237208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/71432
PR ada/71413
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 38659
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38659&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Must be compiled with -O2 -march=core-avx2 -m32 options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453
Bug ID: 71453
Summary: Spills to vector registers are sub-optimal.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57745
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
A()
A()
-
~C()
~B()
~B()
~A()
~A()
This is what I am getting from all recent versions of g++ (including 4.9.N) and
clang++ (as opposed to both ~A before in 4.8.N). That's not the exact
order asked i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71053
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65471
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71433
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
The bug was introduced in r236831.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #1 from Roman Perepelitsa ---
The same bug can lead to incorrect behaviour at run time.
#include
#include
struct S {
int value;
};
void F(S) { puts("right"); }
void F(std::initializer_list) { puts("wrong"); }
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, shiva0217 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
>
> --- Comment #21 from Shiva Chen ---
> Hi, Richard
>
> On following example
>
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see how that would help much. You still wouldn't know if the recvmsg
or sendmsg that is being called by whatever library and is interposed by
libasan etc. is the one with 64-bit msg_iovlen, msg_contr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71169
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Can we use dlvsym for versioned symbols (recvmsg, sendmsg, etc) in the
wrappers?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That change looks wrong to me though.
If glibc has added symbol versioning and changed ABI for existing symbols that
sanitizer libraries wrap, then I'm afraid either we need to start symbol
versioning libsani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #29 from Marek Pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #28 from Florian Weimer ---
We can put such a version check into the glibc headers and see how it works out
in practice. As long as there is consensus to fix any related breakage
(related to the attribute and forward declarations) fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71255
--- Comment #27 from Marek Polacek ---
Typo: I meant __GNUC__ >= 7 as this is fixed for GCC 7 and onwards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71450
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #21 from Shiva Chen ---
Hi, Richard
On following example
int a = ABS_EXPR (b);
int c = a - 1;
c will get it's range base on a which is ~[INT_MIN+1, -1]
Even if we transfer to
int a = (int) ABSU_EXPR (b);
int c = a - 1;
Therefor
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
