https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101452
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
do you have an idea why it works with -gdwarf-4 but not -gdwarf-5?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101457
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101459
--- Comment #3 from ashimida ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The flag, -falign-functions is only enabled at -O2+ (but not -Os), but the
> actual alignment is recorded in the 'align_functions' data which is only
> populated whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101452
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> do you have an idea why it works with -gdwarf-4 but not -gdwarf-5?
If we do with n == 4 and n == 5:
...
$ rm -f *.c.* ; ./install/bin/g++ test.c -c -g -gdwarf-$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101452
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I agree the pruning doesn't make much sense and that it's bad from a QOI
perspective. So it looks like fixing this part would be better then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54569
Alexander Grund changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexander.grund@tu-dresden.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101437
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6dde32b9d487dd6e343d0a1e1d1f60783f5e735
commit r12-2320-gf6dde32b9d487dd6e343d0a1e1d1f60783f5e735
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101437
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101448
--- Comment #4 from Xinliang ---
Looking into the relocation code[1] of ld.
I'm very curious why ld can't handle long call here.
[1]:
```
2976 static enum elf_aarch64_stub_type
2977 aarch64_type_of_stub (asection *input_sec,
2978
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101346
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96286
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96286
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It also doesn't help that the compiler thwarts my attempt to trigger errors
earlier like so:
// Return index of _Tp in _Types.
// Ill-formed if _Tp doesn't occur exactly once in _Types.
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101460
Bug ID: 101460
Summary: Useless cascade of overload resolution errors for
invalid expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnosti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101448
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Zhao ---
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your info.
Previously it is built without any -O parameters, so it should be -O0 by
default.
I've tried to use the "-Og" to link, it is quite interesting that use -Og we
can link succes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96286
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Why is the compiler even doing overload resolution for std::get if I is
> an invalid constant expression?! It's not going to match any overload!
This part is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101422
--- Comment #8 from Simon Willcocks ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Simon Willcocks from comment #2)
> > That's not an accurate description of the problem; the value of the variable
> > is being passed, not its add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101460
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101460
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I know that attempting to continue compiling can be very useful, so that
additional errors in the code can still be diagnosed. But in this case, maybe
we should mark 'n' as "tainted" so that we don't keep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #237 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #228)
> gcov-tool.c avoids build errors from ftwbuf differences on HP, apply if you
> hit errors but may need tidying up.
Instead of this patch, try the patch for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101395
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0128f11e9dadc3cc3ed0ad0edb36593b16f72e8
commit r11-8754-ga0128f11e9dadc3cc3ed0ad0edb36593b16f72e8
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101395
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101458
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99664
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101023
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba3b30cf70990f4aadb393b64b76ff490bb0bd0f
commit r11-8755-gba3b30cf70990f4aadb393b64b76ff490bb0bd0f
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101023
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101427
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The std::get code stopped working as a result of r11-4693 which implemented
a core language change:
c++: DR2303, ambiguous base deduction [PR97453]
When there are two possible matches and one is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100968
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101447
ashimida changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #238 from John Buddery ---
Thanks, I'll give it a go.
It seems binutils 2.32 and earlier works fine in 32 bit mode, but 2.33.1 and
later require a 64 bit build for 64 bit objects to work reliably.
Was your 11.1 build successful ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101461
Bug ID: 101461
Summary: [12 regression]
gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl test
cases fail after r12-2266
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101456
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51153|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #239 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #238)
> Thanks, I'll give it a go.
>
> It seems binutils 2.32 and earlier works fine in 32 bit mode, but 2.33.1 and
> later require a 64 bit build for 64 bit obje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99664
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #240 from John Buddery ---
Yeah, it sure eats up the space.
One question about PR66319 - it's marked as resolved, so is this committed as a
patch in the trunk ?
I'm hoping that eventually there will be a way to get all the edits her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #241 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #240)
> One question about PR66319 - it's marked as resolved, so is this committed
> as a patch in the trunk ?
It's resolved for HP-UX/PA but my HP-UX/IA patch wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101129
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad5f8ac1d2f2dc92d43663243b52f9e9eb3cf7c0
commit r12-2325-gad5f8ac1d2f2dc92d43663243b52f9e9eb3cf7c0
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101462
Bug ID: 101462
Summary: [12 regression] ICE on aarch64 after r12-2292
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101129
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #242 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-07-15 11:01 a.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
>
> --- Comment #241 from The Written Word com> ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101429
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f7182d68c24985dace2a94422c671ff987c262c
commit r12-2326-g1f7182d68c24985dace2a94422c671ff987c262c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101460
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17855eed7fc76b2cee7fbbc26f84d3c8b99be13c
commit r12-2327-g17855eed7fc76b2cee7fbbc26f84d3c8b99be13c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101427
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17855eed7fc76b2cee7fbbc26f84d3c8b99be13c
commit r12-2327-g17855eed7fc76b2cee7fbbc26f84d3c8b99be13c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101429
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101427
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] std::get |[11 Regression] std::get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101463
Bug ID: 101463
Summary: Using a constexpr variable template specialization as
default argument for non-type template parameter of
reference type leads gcc to reject function call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101307
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100949
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba66193c2966ff7106245e23d6b359f7d30bcff7
commit r11-8756-gba66193c2966ff7106245e23d6b359f7d30bcff7
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Looks like the original testcase is indeed valid, but one needs to include
as well (for pmr::polymorphic_allocator).
Reduced:
template
struct A { A(T, U); };
template
using B = A;
using type = decltype(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101233
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> but one needs to include
> as well (for pmr::polymorphic_allocator).
For libstdc++ the header only declares the pmr::vector alias, without
defining prm::pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98f1f9f38c45218c06200feb1939c9433a2ab6ca
commit r12-2329-g98f1f9f38c45218c06200feb1939c9433a2ab6ca
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98f1f9f38c45218c06200feb1939c9433a2ab6ca
commit r12-2329-g98f1f9f38c45218c06200feb1939c9433a2ab6ca
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Fixed for GCC 12.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101457
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b25edf6e6feeadc6a5aa337b8c725786227162dd
commit r12-2330-gb25edf6e6feeadc6a5aa337b8c725786227162dd
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101457
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101443
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7094a69bd62a14dfa311eaa2fea468f221c7c9f3
commit r12-2331-g7094a69bd62a14dfa311eaa2fea468f221c7c9f3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101448
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Kevin Zhao from comment #5)
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for your info.
> Previously it is built without any -O parameters, so it should be -O0 by
> default.
>
> I've tried to use the "-Og" to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101464
Bug ID: 101464
Summary: Replace zveroupper with vpxor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #243 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #238)
> It seems binutils 2.32 and earlier works fine in 32 bit mode, but 2.33.1 and
> later require a 64 bit build for 64 bit objects to work reliably.
I can bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101465
Bug ID: 101465
Summary: Poorly worded error from a call to a pointer-to-member
function not wrapped in parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94713
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33255ad3ac14e3953750fe0f2d82b901c2852ff6
commit r12-2337-g33255ad3ac14e3953750fe0f2d82b901c2852ff6
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95006
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33255ad3ac14e3953750fe0f2d82b901c2852ff6
commit r12-2337-g33255ad3ac14e3953750fe0f2d82b901c2852ff6
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94714
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33255ad3ac14e3953750fe0f2d82b901c2852ff6
commit r12-2337-g33255ad3ac14e3953750fe0f2d82b901c2852ff6
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0500db3692276f60e0562c17c87a0cb03e34398
commit r12-2338-gf0500db3692276f60e0562c17c87a0cb03e34398
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
Bug ID: 101466
Summary: Optimizers should fold bounds checking for
-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS=1
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 97027, which changed state.
Bug 97027 Summary: missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar
into a smaller array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51158
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51158&action=edit
this is the assembly generated from --disable-libstdcxx-verbose
The bounds checking is still not folding together,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
The --enable-libstdcxx-verbose has side effects, not optimizing to
vectorization code is correct, although
.L12:
mov ecx, OFFSET FLAT:.LC1
mov edx, OFFSET FLAT:.LC2
mov esi, 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
>
> However, the __builtin_abort() case can be merged together without any issue
> I believe.
And optimize to vectorized code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-15
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94713
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95006
Bug 95006 depends on bug 94713, which changed state.
Bug 94713 Summary: Analyzer is buggy on uninitialized pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94713
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94714
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95006
Bug 95006 depends on bug 94714, which changed state.
Bug 94714 Summary: Analyzer: no warning on access of an uninitialized variable
of automatic storage duration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94714
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95006
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #2)
> The --enable-libstdcxx-verbose has side effects, not optimizing to
> vectorization code is correct, although
Those can be merged still since the arguments to __repla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Reduced testcase:
> extern void g() __attribute__((noreturn));
>
> void square(int t, int *tt)
> {
> if (t == 0) g();
> tt[0] = 0;
> if (t == 1) g();
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101466
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Reduced testcase:
> > extern void g() __attribute__((noreturn));
> >
> > void square(int t, int *tt)
> > {
> > if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83596
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71690
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 71690, which changed state.
Bug 71690 Summary: some integer conversions defeat memcpy optimizaton
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71690
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17459
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-06-13 00:43:47 |2021-7-15
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101346
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f364cdffa47af574f90f671b2dcf5afa91442741
commit r12-2340-gf364cdffa47af574f90f671b2dcf5afa91442741
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50462
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since GCC 4.9 we don't perform overload resolution, so I think this is fixed:
50462.C: In function 'void print(V)':
50462.C:13:13: error: invalid use of non-static member function 'int V::size()'
13 | {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50462
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Since GCC 4.9 we don't perform overload resolution, so I think this is fixed:
Huh, that's true for the reduced example in comment 4, but the original one
fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101465
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50462
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, it's the overloaded function thjat makes the difference between saying
"invalid use of non-static member function" and trying to do overload
resolution with an .
Reduced example that actually reproduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101110
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
Does this still fail? When i look at a cross compiler listing I do not see any
differences from ranger in the listing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101459
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to ashimida from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > The flag, -falign-functions is only enabled at -O2+ (but not -Os), but the
> > actual alignment is recorded in the 'a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101459
--- Comment #5 from ashimida ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to ashimida from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > > The flag, -falign-functions is only enabled at -O2+ (but not -Os), but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101464
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101464
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51159
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51159&action=edit
A patch
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
