From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114587 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2015 09:38:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 114545 invoked by uid 48); 20 Jul 2015 09:38:50 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53431] C++ preprocessor ignores #pragma GCC diagnostic Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:38:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg01706.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53431 --- Comment #12 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Allan Chandler from comment #11) > Now you've done it. This was reported over three years ago and now it's > affected someone on Stack Overflow. You guys are in for it now :-) Unfortunately, the C/C++ FEs in GCC have very very few developers relative = to their importance and amount work they require. There is a patch in comment = #10, but it requires some additional work for which I do not have enough free ti= me. If you or someone else has some free time to finish this work, this is how I would proceed: 1. Try to figure out why the preprocessor removes the pragmas (and not other #-directives) 2. If you cannot figure it out, ask in gcc@ with explicit CC to C/C++/libcpp maintainers (see MAINTAINERS file). 3. Complete the patch, bootstrap®ression test, add a Changelog, submit to gcc-patches and ping until it is approved. More details: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics:_Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_e= asy_steps Otherwise, given that this hasn't been fixed in more than 4 years (see PR48914), it seems likely that active developers have higher priority thing= s to work on and it will remain unfixed until some new volunteer steps up to the task. If/When I have a little free time to work on GCC, there are at least a coup= le of other bugs I would rather fix before this one. >>From gcc-bugs-return-492817-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Jul 20 09:40:31 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 117016 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2015 09:40:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 116717 invoked by uid 48); 20 Jul 2015 09:40:27 -0000 From: "ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/66915] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/fixed-point/unary.c execution test on arm Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:40:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg01707.txt.bz2 Content-length: 252 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66915 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 36015 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36015&action=edit Diff between good and bad versions of the assembly