https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79055
Bug ID: 79055
Summary: gcc should not warn about the assignment-allocation
character 'm' of scanf when POSIX is enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79041
--- Comment #3 from Robert Schiele ---
If you point me to the specific patch that you have in mind I can in parallel
already test whether besides the test case I provided it also fixes the
original problem this was detected with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71847
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78142
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
What's the status of this? Can it be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71199
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
After some experiments, we've found that a better approach is to continue using
the current poor-man's overloading scheme, and do more folding of built-in
calls following gimplification. David, should we clo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
--- Comment #10 from TC ---
C&P'ing the relevant parts of my email to the lists here for the record:
The new default member initializers use {}, and it's not too hard to find test
cases where {} and value-initialization do different things, incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77346
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Shall we close this for now? We can always reopen if it resurfaces.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79054
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||poerpc64*-*-*
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79054
Bug ID: 79054
Summary: missing range information with INT_MAX
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70831
--- Comment #12 from JD ---
My CPU is Intel Core i7-4800MQ, but I realized my report was misleading.
I get that same error with
LDFLAGS=-flto
CXXFLAGS=-flto
CFLAGS=-flto
which results in
"CFLAGS=-g -O2 -flto" "CXXFLAGS=-g -O2 -flto -D_GNU_SOURC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79053
Bug ID: 79053
Summary: Memory leak from array constructor + array index off
by one the array
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79052
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79052
Bug ID: 79052
Summary: bootstrap-ubsan failures due to warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||poerpc64*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the heads up, Bill. I opened bug 79051 for the failure. Can you
paste the excess error(s) you see into that bug please? (I don't see any in my
builds.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
Bug ID: 79051
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-4.c (test for warnings,
line 140)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78606
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78960
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78133
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78133
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 10 22:45:52 2017
New Revision: 244298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/78960 - FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf.c execution tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78960
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 10 22:45:52 2017
New Revision: 244298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/78960 - FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf.c execution tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78959
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 10 22:45:52 2017
New Revision: 244298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/78960 - FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf.c execution tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
--- Comment #4 from Wenzel Jakob ---
This bug is still present in the latest GCC -- are there any plans to fix it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76731
--- Comment #9 from Wenzel Jakob ---
Hi -- just a ping regarding this issue.
Thanks,
Wenzel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78138
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 10 22:35:22 2017
New Revision: 244297
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244297&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78138 - missing warnings on buffer overflow with non-constan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77598
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77598
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 10 22:33:09 2017
New Revision: 244296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244296&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77598
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-ref11.C: New.
Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Adam Butcher from comment #4)
> (In reply to Michele Caini from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > > Shall we remove that altogether, or just pedwarn on it?
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch to add LTO to the set of languages these options are enabled for posted
for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00658.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78274
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56480
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77949
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77597
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78245
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78245
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 10 21:56:44 2017
New Revision: 244294
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244294&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78245 - missing -Wformat-length on an overflow of a dynamica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78245
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 10 21:54:15 2017
New Revision: 244293
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244293&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78245 - missing -Wformat-length on an overflow of a dynamica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77949
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jan 10 21:54:09 2017
New Revision: 244292
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244292&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix issues with unrepresentable column numbers (PR c++/77949)
PR c++/7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68336
Stephan Beyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s-beyer at gmx dot net
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70182
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10)
> Looks like:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/mangle.c b/gcc/cp/mangle.c
> index 5d38373765bb..9d04c35d1f62 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/mangle.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/mangle.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79050
--- Comment #1 from Stefan ---
Maybe dupe of #77754
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79050
Bug ID: 79050
Summary: internal compiler error: tree code
'template_type_parm' is not supported in LTO streams
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77489
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> Untested patch:
This looks good, except that the mangling change needs to depend on
-fabi-version, and in the demangling change open braces go on a new lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78775
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jan 10 21:02:07 2017
New Revision: 244290
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244290&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/78775 - [7 Regression] ICE in
maybe_warn_alloc_args_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Jan 10 20:55:59 2017
New Revision: 244287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/77766
PR tree-optimization/78856
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77766
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Jan 10 20:55:59 2017
New Revision: 244287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/77766
PR tree-optimization/78856
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79044
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patches submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00651.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79037
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #1)
> I'll report back tomorrow.
Problem persists:
root@mama:~# ./hello-world
fatal error: parforsetup: pos is not aligned
runtime stack:
ru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79049
Bug ID: 79049
Summary: Unknown escape sequence not correctly pointed out
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78900
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jan 10 20:03:00 2017
New Revision: 244285
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #25 from Peter Bergne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #24 from Peter Bergner ---
Closing as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #22 from Bill Seurer ---
This is now resolved in gcc 5, 6, and trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78877
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00646.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68604
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Hmm. The problem here is that the operand of typeid may or may not be an
unevaluated operand, so we don't know which it is while we're parsing.
This can be worked around by writing typeid(decltype((A::i)))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #21 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: seurer
Date: Tue Jan 10 19:11:55 2017
New Revision: 244284
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-10 Bill Seurer
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79048
Bug ID: 79048
Summary: Unnecessary reload for flags setting insn when
operands die
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79045
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Also note that for f1 reload fails to figure out that both regs die in (insn
> 10):
-> PR79048.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79048
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71357
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Probably changing iteration space in the test-case would re-trigger
> the issue.
Well, trying this suggestion didn't work for me. I still fail to reproduce it
by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
--- Comment #8 from jerryct ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> That introduces a different problem though. This won't compile with libc++:
>
> #include
> struct D : std::deque { D(int) { } };
> template class std::stack;
>
> T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
--- Comment #3 from Dave Johansen ---
What are the chances that either of those changes will make it into the 7
release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79045
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Same situation with:
extern void g();
void f1(char a,char b){ if(a|b)g(); }
void f2(bool a,bool b){ if(a|b)g(); }
f1:
movl%esi, %eax
orb %dil, %al
jne .L4
f2:
test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79039
--- Comment #2 from Carl Love ---
On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 14:29 +, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79039
>
> Bill Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79040
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77766
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79045
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79047
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79047
Bug ID: 79047
Summary: loop annotation ignored in templated function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
Bug 71977 depends on bug 70568, which changed state.
Bug 70568 Summary: [5/6/7 regression] PowerPC64: union of floating and fixed
doesn't use POWER8 GPR/VSR moves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40494|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79040
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77766
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I'll take a look. Given the source, it could well have been another instance
of the cached iteration information.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78823
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jan 10 17:44:17 2017
New Revision: 244279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-10 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jan 10 17:44:17 2017
New Revision: 244279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-10 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jan 10 17:44:17 2017
New Revision: 244279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-10 Michael Meissner
Back port from trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 40494
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40494&action=edit
Back port of patch to fix problem on GCC 6 branch
While it has been decided not to apply this improvement to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jan 10 17:30:20 2017
New Revision: 244278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR77528 add default constructors for container adaptors
PR libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-01/msg00033.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
Bug ID: 79046
Summary: g++ -print-file-name=plugin uses full version number
in path
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79044
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78304
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79041
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61729
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78877
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2016-12-21 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71463
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
As Jason explained it works as designed. But the warning is certainly
confusing. It doesn't help that not all attributes enjoy this special
treatment or that the manual doesn't explain it. At a minimum, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |---
Summary|[7 Regression] Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78992
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 10 15:22:56 2017
New Revision: 244275
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244275&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/78992
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_l
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
