https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.1.0, 9.4.0
Target Milestone|10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #21 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #20)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> > Ah, so the issue is missing -mavx512bw which means we end up with a AVX2
> > style
> > mask for V32QImode. With
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104081
Bug ID: 104081
Summary: Variable optimized out despite -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104081
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Urlichs ---
current line is 24, after "throw_invalid" has called abort()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #22 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #21)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #20)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> > > Ah, so the issue is missing -mavx512bw which means we end up wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104081
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the original source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
Bug ID: 104082
Summary: Wdangling-pointer: 2 * false positive ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I've no idea why the warning is generated, the code looks legal to me
The warning is generated even though the code is valid, if someone deferences
metricp after the call to s88, the code becomes undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104081
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Urlichs ---
Sure.
gcc -Og -g -std=c++17 -lstdc++ /tmp/test.cpp
#include
#include
void throw_invalid(const char *a, std::string_view b) {
(void)a; (void)b;
throw;
}
int64_t str_atoi(std::string_view dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >I've no idea why the warning is generated, the code looks legal to me
>
> The warning is generated even though the code is valid, if someone
> deferences met
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104083
Bug ID: 104083
Summary: Ada testsuite does not respect RUNTESTFLAGS
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104083
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
--- Comment #20 from David Binderman ---
This code still seems broken:
**Gif_ClipImage_gfi_0;
Gif_ClipImage_gfi_1, Gif_ClipImage_y, Gif_ClipImage_shift;
Gif_ClipImage() {
Gif_ClipImage_y = Gif_ClipImage_gfi_1 - 1;
for (; Gif_ClipImage_y >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104080
Pekka S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104064
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00dc7877ee02634d4837d024e36b55bef6b9d49c
commit r12-6660-g00dc7877ee02634d4837d024e36b55bef6b9d49c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 104064, which changed state.
Bug 104064 Summary: gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c:3208:16: runtime error: signed
integer overflow: 17 - -9223372036854775806 cannot be represented in type 'long
int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104080
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It would be better to use __has_include to detect headers, not hardcoding it
based on target macros. But I don't see why we need that header anyway, GCC
defines __BYTE_ORDER__ and __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104083
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Once could of course argue that eventually the acats/run_all.sh can somehow
pick up options from the RUNTESTFLAGS argument (it might need to be exported
somehow of course).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102087
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Bug ID: 104084
Summary: [12 regression] Internal compiler error: tree check:
expected target_expr, have compound_expr in
build_new_1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104069
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Actually, this is already supposed to be handled but the code is not
> effective due to a typo. This fixes it:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104080
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|hp at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
--- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen ---
Removing the (std::nothrow), and declaring the untagged new operator (instead
of declaring them deleted), seems to work around the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104081
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
when I break at line 24 the data is still there but it's lost when unwinding
frames from the SIGABRT:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x770cc18b in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x770cd585 in abort () fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
--- Comment #3 from Allan Jensen ---
-v output:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc/bin/g++-12
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/opt/gcc
--program-suffix=-12
Thread model: posix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
--- Comment #4 from Allan Jensen ---
Created attachment 52217
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52217&action=edit
-E output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104080
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97b9236976a4914d268089613d1fb42ece34aff9
commit r12-6664-g97b9236976a4914d268089613d1fb42ece34aff9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104085
Bug ID: 104085
Summary: mips: libstdc++ ABI check compares against wrong file
if GCC is configured with --with-abi=(32|64)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104080
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f6b62e0f0c99e421d07bf1847259744db22924b
commit r12-6665-g8f6b62e0f0c99e421d07bf1847259744db22924b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104086
Bug ID: 104086
Summary: ICE in lower_omp_target, at omp-low.c:13075
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104080
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This should be fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104087
Bug ID: 104087
Summary: Invoking a consteval constructor with new
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104081
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Urlichs ---
> when I break at line 24 the data is still there but it's lost
> when unwinding frames from the SIGABRT:
Yes, that's exactly the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104088
Bug ID: 104088
Summary: [12 Regression] '-O2' (or higher) GCN offloading
(only) 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/vprop.c' excess
errors: 'warning: writing 1 byte into a region of size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-18
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76fe494230477a69f8fa8c8ca2d493acaf343eb1
commit r12--g76fe494230477a69f8fa8c8ca2d493acaf343eb1
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102361
Bug 102361 depends on bug 101941, which changed state.
Bug 101941 Summary: [12 Regression] Linux kernel build failure due to retaining
fnsplit fragment with __attribute__((__error__))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101941
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104089
Bug ID: 104089
Summary: ICE in constant_svalue, at analyzer/svalue.h:271
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
>
> Thomas Schwinge changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104087
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
>
> --- Comment #22 from Hongtao.liu ---
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104090
Bug ID: 104090
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] powerpc: asm machine directive
wrong for FSL processors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104091
Bug ID: 104091
Summary: -std=c++20 causing meaningless error message "'auto'
not allowed in alias declaration" which should be
"missing template arguments after ..."
Produc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104082
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
I just tried compiling a recent linux kernel with the new gcc trunk
and the warning appeared seven times.
Only one of them was a proper bug, which I have reported.
The rest were false positives.
So this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101124
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another example that now fails:
#include
struct X { } x;
std::pair p(x, 0);
This selects the pair::pair(U1&&, U2&&) constructor, because x is
non-const and the pair::first_type type is const. U2 gets de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104017
Lars Gullik Bjønnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||larsbj at gullik dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
Bug ID: 104092
Summary: [12 Regression] Invalid -Wdangling-pointer warning
after writes by calls
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104090
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104090
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber ---
I work on a patch, see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/588641.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104065
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Thanks for the hint. I've now renamed the .c files to .cc and adjusted the
Make-lang.in and waiting for the full bootstrap to complete before pushing
changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104093
Bug ID: 104093
Summary: Make -Wvexing-parse warn on declaration of void
functions as well
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101388
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #9)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #7)
> > The warning control falls into the C++ trap of using a reference
> > to old hashtable contents for a p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
>
> --- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[12 regression] In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104080
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103974
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Yes, thanks for the quick resolution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104005
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38ec23fafb167ddfe840d7bb22b3e943d8a7d29e
commit r12-6669-g38ec23fafb167ddfe840d7bb22b3e943d8a7d29e
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104005
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104086
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104025
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe. But how? Would it push a pair of next_token, input_location ?
I think it isn't easy to recompute input_location after the rollback otherwise.
And, I'm a little bit worried that such a change could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102041
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104094
Bug ID: 104094
Summary: Alias template shown in diagnostic with wrong template
parameter name
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54948
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101354
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:806d0ce8cb0c1b690e6b5774a5eb3a1404a21253
commit r11-9477-g806d0ce8cb0c1b690e6b5774a5eb3a1404a21253
Author: Martin Liska
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101354
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103987
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ed40db0f12994e64434dc2e0590ba1da7ba5f60
commit r12-6672-g3ed40db0f12994e64434dc2e0590ba1da7ba5f60
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #23 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #22)
> If we consider such an inline asm invalid, we could error on it, ICE is not
> the right thing. But what exactly should we error on? Alternative
I think i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104058
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104054
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104049
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104039
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104095
Bug ID: 104095
Summary: g++ diagnosis may use non-standard terminology:
"constant" instead of "literal", "integer" instead of
"integral"
Product: gcc
Version: 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103952
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104074
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 103899, which changed state.
Bug 103899 Summary: [12 Regression] make profiledbootstrap fails due to
uninitialized warning in expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103899
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
