https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79554
Bug ID: 79554
Summary: Zero length format string passed to fprintf under if
statement causes error message
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77536
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> Looks like generic loop unrolling code used by predcom spends quite a lot
> maintaining profiling counter, I will check if that's correct and we shall
> do the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79553
Bug ID: 79553
Summary: Infinite gfortran loop on invalid code with procedures
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Katsunori Kumatani from comment #0)
> Things to note:
>
> This happens on GCC 6 and up to 7 only, GCC 5.4 generates correct output.
> This happens once you turn on the -fschedule-insns option. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
Summary|[Regression GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79552
Bug ID: 79552
Summary: [Regression GCC 6+] Wrong code generation due to
-fschedule-insns, with __restrict__ and inline asm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Actually the last 4 not, they return address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
>
> --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
> Yes, but see my Comment 3 regarding STRIP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Feb 16 12:06:28 2017
New Revision: 245505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60936 fix length calculation
PR libstdc++/60936
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79512
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 12:02:24 2017
New Revision: 245504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79512
c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_target): For -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually the last 4 not, they return addresses into it.
But also strspn and strcspn?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> + /* Pure functions that return something not based on any object. */
> + case BUILT_IN_STRLEN:
> + /* We don't need to do anything here. No co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79380
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |paolo.carlini at oracle
dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77536
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, but see my Comment 3 regarding STRIP_SIGN_NOPS.
Also the typedef is necessary, otherwise there are no NOP_EXPRs (huh).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|[7.0 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79537
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Good catch, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> So perhaps this:
> --- a/gcc/fold-const.c
> +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
> @@ -581,8 +581,8 @@ fold_negate_expr (location_t loc, tree t)
> case COMPLEX_EXPR:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79535
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
> The new testcase FAILs on sparc-sun-solaris2.12, both 32 and 64-bit:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr79347.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times
> v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 40757
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40757&action=edit
sparc-sun-solaris2.12 pr79347.c.158t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
So perhaps this:
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -581,8 +581,8 @@ fold_negate_expr (location_t loc, tree t)
case COMPLEX_EXPR:
if (negate_expr_p (t))
return fold_build2_loc (l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The problem here is that we have a NOP_EXPR: (int) -x. negate_expr_p returns
true for that, which means that fold_negate_expr cannot return NULL_TREE. But
that's what happens, and that leads to a crash in f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
But as A + 8 >= B || A >= B + 8 is the same as ABS (A - B) >= 8 we might do
better re-writing the overlap test in terms of this (of course it all really
depends on whether that and the offset stripping hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
For example with
Index: tree-vect-loop-manip.c
===
--- tree-vect-loop-manip.c (revision 245501)
+++ tree-vect-loop-manip.c (working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #31 from Markus Eisenmann ---
Hi!
There's a minor failure in the (patched) function __concat_size_t (within
snprintf_lite.cc):
size_t __len = __out - __cs;
Calculates the remaining/unsused characters in the buffer __cs!
Therefore t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
int ii;
for (ii=j+1; ii= VF * sizeof (double). It certainly looks more complicated
than that:
_1100 = (unsigned int) SOR_size_19;
_1096 = (unsigned int) j_910;
_1087 = _1100 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
-std=c++1z, of course.
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/kxNlvdtfvjCW5fNN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79550
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 79550 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 08:57:30 2017
New Revision: 245502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2017-02-09 Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79551
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79551
Bug ID: 79551
Summary: Better carouse position for not declared errors
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79546
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |7.0
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener
101 - 154 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
