https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114679
Bug ID: 114679
Summary: .file directive missing on MIPS ports when debug
symbols are enabled.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103730
--- Comment #2 from Jan Smets ---
PEBKAC. Thanks for clarifying.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103730
Bug ID: 103730
Summary: ubsan: store with insufficient space for an object of
type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70871
--- Comment #6 from Jan Smets ---
Sounds good. I appreciate the follow-up, thanks you for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
--- Comment #3 from Jan Smets ---
Is there some way there can be warned against such invalid usages? Because
these things are really hard to see on a 'macro' level.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100671
--- Comment #1 from Jan Smets ---
Another one we've had problems with is quite similar. The example below is a
void function trying to return a value.
#if 1
/* NULL defined in a system header file
=> warning in "one shot" compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100671
Bug ID: 100671
Summary: override-init suppressed in 'two shot' compilation
when initializer macro/value is defined in system
header file
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
Bug ID: 100653
Summary: usage of scalar_storage_order produces incorrect
result
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #10 from Jan Smets ---
I have a couple of changes in my own tree. I had a couple of different issues
and I don't recall exactly what change was for what specifically.
I locally have a revert of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #15 from Jan Smets ---
Thanks. See 98018.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98018
Bug ID: 98018
Summary: Option to force frame pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #13 from Jan Smets ---
H.J, There are still some very basic backtrace implementations that rely on
frame pointers. (No DWARF based things or any other forms of 'assistance'). A
missing stack frame means the "previous" function is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Jan Smets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Jan Smets ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #2 from Jan Smets ---
Apologies, I omitted the -O1 / -O2
$ docker run --privileged --rm -it -v /tmp:/tmp gcc:10.2 bash -c "gcc -c
/tmp/test4.c -S -o - -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer
| grep rbp"
$ docker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Bug ID: 97902
Summary: x86 frame pointer missing with -fno-omit-frame-pointer
(-mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97617
--- Comment #3 from Jan Smets ---
Sorry, I was too quickly in my wording to "skip single_exit()", of course that
edge is still required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97617
--- Comment #2 from Jan Smets ---
Is it maybe a possibility to report the (possible) false positives with
something like -Waggressive-loop-optimizations=2 ?
Would that only require a skip of single_exit() in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97617
Bug ID: 97617
Summary: missing aggressive loop optimization warning in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
18 matches
Mail list logo
