https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98649
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98650
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97348
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98611
--- Comment #6 from Björn Sundin ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #5)
> The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0bec6ceac47752616dd9fe0801344ed45db2fd3
>
> commit r11-6614-ge0bec6ceac47752616dd9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98655
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
can't reproduce with a cross to ppc64le.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98652
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-13
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98652
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b70fa678b1a5ecf3ee87e2be87c3dc9dd08cc92
commit r11-6630-g6b70fa678b1a5ecf3ee87e2be87c3dc9dd08cc92
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98652
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88783
--- Comment #8 from prajwapa at in dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to prajwapa from comment #7)
> Kindly let me know, if this bug is going to be fixed in binutils and in
> which version?
could someone please provide an update as this is urgent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96938
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d057bfeff70e5b8d00e521844c476f62d51e22c
commit r11-6631-g5d057bfeff70e5b8d00e521844c476f62d51e22c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98471
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The bug is already assigned to me so I get emailed about all updates to the
bug, so stop CCing my other email addresses.
Being annoying does not persuade me to fix things any faster. Quite the
opposite in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98656
Bug ID: 98656
Summary: switchlower_O0 drops line number of switch
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We could make immediate use of these in libstdc++. We have std::align and
std::assume_aligned in include/bits/align.h, and aligned_ceil in
src/c++17/memory_resource.cc, and a couple of places in libsupc++/n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98471
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The bug is already assigned to me so I get emailed about all updates to the
> bug, so stop CCing my other email addresses.
>
> Being annoying does not persuade me t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98640
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffd28c265e6d611983cd27e9332dc799039a3f04
commit r11-6632-gffd28c265e6d611983cd27e9332dc799039a3f04
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> assume_aligned is something different, I guess __builtin_is_aligned expands
> to an actual runtime check (perhaps optimized away if the pointer can't be
> misal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> I set them so that each stmt has a unique id, unique across all functions.
> I was assuming from the comments I quoted above in gimple.h that this is
> safe to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98455
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7875e8dc831f30eec7203e090a209efe4c01a27d
commit r11-6635-g7875e8dc831f30eec7203e090a209efe4c01a27d
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98455
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95905
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1d1e2b54c6b9cf13f021176ba37d24cc4dc2fe1
commit r11-6636-gb1d1e2b54c6b9cf13f021176ba37d24cc4dc2fe1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 49958
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49958&action=edit
unincluded GCC source
The GCC source no longer compiles due to missing changes in the x86 intrinsic
includes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98655
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
My configuration is 32-bit BE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98656
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 49959
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49959&action=edit
Tentative patch
Using this tentative patch, I get back the .loc for line number 5:
...
foo:
.LFB0:
.file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 78746, which changed state.
Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891
Bug 89891 depends on bug 78746, which changed state.
Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98657
Bug ID: 98657
Summary: SVE: ICE (unrecognizable insn) wtih shift at -O3
-msve-vector-bits=256
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98657
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98657
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Slightly cleaner testcase:
extern char a[];
void b(_Bool c[][18]) {
int d;
for (int e = 0; e < 23; e++)
a[e] = 6 >> c[1][d];
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Example where the new code gets it all wrong
struct S { char a; int b; char c; unsigned d; };
struct T { char t; struct S u; int v; };
typedef short U[2][2];
void baz (U *);
static inline int
bar (char *p)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94464
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98656
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89204
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98626
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ddc18251a821fe69d6229abbf83d77284d2340a
commit r11-6644-g3ddc18251a821fe69d6229abbf83d77284d2340a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
Alex Richardson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Alexander.Richardson at cl dot
cam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98222
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
--- Comment #6 from Alex Richardson
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> assume_aligned is something different, I guess __builtin_is_aligned expands
> to an actual runtime check (perhaps optimized away if the pointer can't be
> misa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alex Richardson from comment #5)
> extern int i;
> _Static_assert(__builtin_is_aligned(__builtin_assume_aligned(&i, 16), 8),
> "");
> generates an "alignment of the base pointee object (4 bytes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82481
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d3636923a309074eb19240ebaa30c1a0801eaaf
commit r10-9267-g8d3636923a309074eb19240ebaa30c1a0801eaaf
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d3636923a309074eb19240ebaa30c1a0801eaaf
commit r10-9267-g8d3636923a309074eb19240ebaa30c1a0801eaaf
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98626
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11cbea852b0ae2b0f17a9caeaf6344d689231c2f
commit r11-6647-g11cbea852b0ae2b0f17a9caeaf6344d689231c2f
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98632
--- Comment #2 from tilps at hotmail dot com ---
*rough sketch*
class TaskConsumer {
void run() {
if (taken_count_.load(std::memory_order_acquire) <
task_count_.load(std::memory_order_acquire)) {
taken_count_.fetch_add(1, std::memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98626
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 98626, which changed state.
Bug 98626 Summary: UBSAN: vec.h:591:30: runtime error: member access within
null pointer of type 'struct vec'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98626
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, before starting to fix all the bugs in the print_mem_ref routine, I think
we should add something like:
--- gcc/c-family/c-pretty-print.c.jj2021-01-13 08:02:09.425498954 +0100
+++ gcc/c-family/c-prett
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:285fa338b06b804e72997c4d876ecf08a9c083af
commit r11-6649-g285fa338b06b804e72997c4d876ecf08a9c083af
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98658
Bug ID: 98658
Summary: Loop idiom recognization for memcpy/memmove
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98496
--- Comment #11 from Svante Signell ---
ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98638
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I see a similar ICE happening in libretro-mame package where a PCH is used:
../../../../../src/emu/screen.h: In member function
'std::enable_if_t::supports_callback::value, void>
screen_device::set_screen_upd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98658
--- Comment #1 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
ICC produces memcpy:
https://godbolt.org/z/oKxxTM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That would be then following (though I didn't want to touch the rest of
print_mem_ref so the patch doesn't remember op anywhere and resets byte_off
too).
--- gcc/c-family/c-pretty-print.c.jj2021-01-13 08:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82481
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4aeae11db66c9bce0aadf447e6ff0776a97bfccf
commit r9-9180-g4aeae11db66c9bce0aadf447e6ff0776a97bfccf
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4aeae11db66c9bce0aadf447e6ff0776a97bfccf
commit r9-9180-g4aeae11db66c9bce0aadf447e6ff0776a97bfccf
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, I'm not convinced it is ok to use TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE arg)) in the !addr
case for anything at all even for warnings, as in GIMPLE pointer conversions
are useless and therefore it very well could be com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
--- Comment #8 from Alex Richardson
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I guess I have big questions on what exactly will it do during constexpr
> evaluation - if it is on a pointer to object with certain alignment, for
> smaller a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82481
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:283c218a4846075c549f0215d6883e577b26e845
commit r8-10726-g283c218a4846075c549f0215d6883e577b26e845
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:283c218a4846075c549f0215d6883e577b26e845
commit r8-10726-g283c218a4846075c549f0215d6883e577b26e845
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98659
Bug ID: 98659
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that
contains ‘decl common’ structure, have ‘error_mark’ in
maybe_instantiate_noexcept, at cp/pt.c:25445 since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98644
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98659
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98659
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98658
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #28 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98644
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98657
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98231
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
This seems to work...
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
@@ -9279,4 +9279,14 @@ push_operator_bindings ()
}
}
+/* Wrapper around push_local_binding to push the bindings for
+ a non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> There's no testcase named "pr78746.f90" in the testsuite.
Ideed! My prx.f90 are in the test suite only when they are fixed.
Now my "pr78746.f90" is exactly charlen_03.f90.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With the patch for C++14 and older the problem is that the empty base has no
FIELD_DECL in the RECORD_TYPE at all, so it then doesn't find anything.
So for the empty_base && lval case it might be better to re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746
--- Comment #30 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #29)
> > There's no testcase named "pr78746.f90" in the testsuite.
>
> Ideed! My prx.f90 are in the test suite only when they are fixed.
>
> No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98658
--- Comment #3 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
Yes, runtime check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96688
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98231
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
--- Comment #19 from Paul Sokolovsky ---
Vladimir Makarov, Przemyslaw Wirkus: Thanks looking into this issue and fixing
it!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98660
Bug ID: 98660
Summary: -Wold-style-cast should not warn on casts that look
like (decltype(x))(x)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96688
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605
--- Comment #12 from Matheus Izvekov ---
Thank you!!!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Saving and restoring the uids fixes the issue, so I'm working on a patch to the
analyzer pass to do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96691
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fc183ccd0628465205b8a88c29ab69bfe74a08a
commit r11-6651-g8fc183ccd0628465205b8a88c29ab69bfe74a08a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> What about fixing the -g interaction? Much like how -g shouldn't affect
> code generation, it probably shouldn't be affecting warnings like this.
>
> There ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, it is important to be able for -g0 to be able to optimize as many BLOCKs
as possible especially for LTO memory consumptions, so it should be just the
BLOCKs at inline boundaries that could be significa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Smallish test case independent of libstdc++ that reproduces both the false
positive (due to the missing aliasing constraint) and its absence (due to a
bug/limitation in tree_inlined_location). With -Wsystem-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98661
Bug ID: 98661
Summary: Valgrind errors during error recovery of invalid
derived type declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
