https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105687
Bug ID: 105687
Summary: non-contiguous data in assumed rank
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
--- Comment #2 from David Summers ---
I suspect its the newlib includes that trigger the problem. As it I did one
compile, where the configure grabbed the host includes (and 64bit system); and
that compile I think worked fine.
My problem though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
Bug ID: 105688
Summary: Cannot build GCC 11.3 on Fedora 36
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #1 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
In /tmp/OBJDIR/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs I replaced the built
libstdc++.so.29 _three times_ with the system one (libstdc++.so.30) and it all
worked.
Still this looks like a serious bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
This workaround of mine is not really good: after `make install` you end up
with /opt/gcc/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.29 which is not GCC's but the system one
(/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.30.so).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105689
Bug ID: 105689
Summary: Bogus `-Wstringop-overflow=` after accessing field,
then containing struct (wrong "region size")
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105675
--- Comment #4 from Ruslan Mkoyan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is a won't fix stitutation.
>
> You have & on a type repeated 237,679 times.
>
> With a recusive decent compiler, you run out of stack space with that m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #4 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> How are you building gcc?
> What configure options are being passed?
> What make options are being passed?
> Do you have any env variables set that might ef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #5 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Using the official tar.xz file of course, without any
changes/modifications/patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105690
Bug ID: 105690
Summary: -Warray-bounds sensitive false positive with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
Bug ID: 105691
Summary: Incorrect calculation of INDEX(str1,str2) at compile
time
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
--- Comment #1 from mecej4 ---
When a program contains an expression that involves the INDEX intrinsic
function, and it is possible to calculate its result value at compile time, the
computed value is sometimes incorrect.
program main
i = in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105507
Christoph Reiter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #73 from Christoph Reiter ---
In a similar bug 105507 we figured out that the MSYS2 build was broken because
it was linking libgcc both statically and dynamically via dependencies, and
that breaks exceptions with dwarf-2.
So in theo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100486
--- Comment #74 from Arnaud Charlet ---
The patch is desirable even outside of this PR, so we'll keep it. And as shown
by PR105507, we have other exception propagation that crept in unintentionally,
so I'll also have a look at these when I get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105692
Bug ID: 105692
Summary: internal compiler error: in finish_expr_stmt, at
cp/semantics.cc:872
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104230
--- Comment #3 from anton at socialhacker dot com ---
I've found the relevant discussion about the correct way to mangle subobject
references in template parameters here:
https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/47
It looks like Clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-22
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is no need to special case the substring length of 1 case with my
suggested patch. Here's an update to eliminate the special case.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105693
Bug ID: 105693
Summary: Requires-clause constructor is not selected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105694
Bug ID: 105694
Summary: ICE: in finish_expr_stmt, at cp/semantics.cc:892
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105695
Bug ID: 105695
Summary: GCC 10.3.1 (20220519) build failure with GCC 12
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105695
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is -std=gnu++98 I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105696
Bug ID: 105696
Summary: invalid use of constexpr static class member accepted
as constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Created attachment 53008 [details]
> A patch for pr104441-1a.c
>
> Does it help?
Yes, that fixes the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 May 2022, roger at nextmovesoftware dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105668
>
> Roger Sayle changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105459
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #7)
> I wonder if it's fine to move init_function_start downward after
> execute_all_ipa_transforms call? the testing is ongoing.
This proposed patch was bootstrapped and reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105676
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
possibly the system header diagnostic changes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105682
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|12/13 Regression
36 matches
Mail list logo
