https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Bug ID: 109470
Summary: unexpected const & behavior
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26724
Matthijs Kooijman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijs at stdin dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
With "-Wall -O1" this is diagnosed properly, but with a spurious
maybe-uninitialized warning:
In file included from /usr/include/c++/12.2.0/cassert:44,
from t.c:2:
t.c: In function 'int main()'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #7 from Costas Argyris ---
Still can't do much without detailed info on how exactly you are building gcc,
what is your build setup, what is your cross-compiler version, OS, how you
configure etc etc...Ideally, solid reproduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #8 from Costas Argyris ---
Are you building the cross-compiler itself or just using an existing
cross-compiler to build for the windows host?
You may have to build the cross-compiler first from the latest gcc sources, and
then use t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58c8c1b383bc3c286d6527fc6e8fb62463f9a877
commit r13-7135-g58c8c1b383bc3c286d6527fc6e8fb62463f9a877
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #9 from Huaqi ---
Hi, Costas Argyris,
I am using this repo to help build toolchain, the repo link is here:
https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gnu-toolchain
clone this source code and its submodule, and change gcc to upstream ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108722
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108241
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb06a507073e4d6218a70a2d5b0738a0487d6d9a
commit r13-7136-gcb06a507073e4d6218a70a2d5b0738a0487d6d9a
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108241
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #44 from Richard Biener ---
The larger testcase:
typedef struct __attribute__((__packed__)) _Atom { float x, y, z; int type; }
Atom;
typedef struct __attribute__((__packed__)) _FFParams { int hbtype; float
radius; float hphb; float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Johannes Kellner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Johannes Kellner from comment #3)
> 'A temporary object bound to a reference parameter in a function call
> persists until the completion of the full-expression containing the call.'
>
> So t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80883
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #10 from Costas Argyris ---
Hi Huaqi,
This is building a larger project, which gcc is part of.I am not familiar
with that larger project and I have never built it.
Could we extract only the gcc-specific part out of the entire b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #6 from Johannes Kellner
---
Ok, Ok :)
It's not to me to argue this.
It's just an unexpected behavior (something I was unaware off/ something that
does not happen when doing the same code with other compilers clang/msvc).
And in m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, "full-expression" is a formal term defined very precisely in the C++
standard. There is no opportunity for GCC to review that without failing to
conform to the C++ standard. Changing when temporary obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Bug ID: 109471
Summary: Missing loop unrolling for small std::vector?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109436
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109446
--- Comment #1 from Mohamed ---
correction to scenario II should pass by value as follows
//void test(Bar b) // scenario II
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109369
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #5)
> Indeed, sorry, __attribute__((used)) seems a much better solution for
> symbols that might be referenced implicitly, in a manner that LTO plugin
> cannot se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #2 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #11 from Costas Argyris ---
As I said before, I think adding the "-o" flag to
$(COMPILER) -c $< -o $@
is a good and harmless change, but, as per your own report, it didn't solve
your issues because you still got that mysterious lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Under debugger (trunk) what I see is that the block_result.intersect
(equiv_range)
in the code added by r13-1938 is only true in the VisitObjCMessageExpr function
twice, each time on the
# Result$16_552 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109431
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109369
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yes, ld should claim _pei386_runtime_relocator (even if later it becomes
unneeded due to zero relocations left to fix up) to make this work properly.
That's for Binutils to fix on their side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109434
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is that clear_bytes_written_by doesn't handle exceptions properly
and that's thru initialize_ao_ref_for_dse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have tried
struct Token {
unsigned char pad[4];
unsigned int uintdata;
unsigned long ptrdata;
unsigned short kind;
unsigned char pad2[6];
Token () : uintdata (0), ptrdata (0), kind (0) {}
uns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109440
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
There's that other bug which would be basically a duplicate, so I leave this
one tree-optimization, not C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109441
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-11
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Neither v nor v1 escapes the function, so I don't think operator delete can
inspect them.
The destructor doesn't inspect the contents, it just destroys the elements
(which is a no-op for int) and then cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109446
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, maybe the problem is that the library code manually elides destroying the
elements, precisely because it's a no-op. So we don't actually destroy the
elements, which means the compiler might think they'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
--- Comment #3 from Stefano ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> The code seems available in the godbolt link but it uses std::array, not
> std::vector.
I'm sorry. I mean std::array of course. :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
--- Comment #4 from Stefano ---
Created attachment 54829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54829&action=edit
source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109104
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40fc8e3d4f600d89e6b065d6f12db7a816269c8f
commit r13-7138-g40fc8e3d4f600d89e6b065d6f12db7a816269c8f
Author: Yanzhang Wang
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Michael Meissner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a15a78b919c43954fbfcc90f53f34d7e2700c97
commit r11-10618-g5a15a78b919c43954fbfcc90f53f34d7e2700c97
Author: Michael Mei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109472
Bug ID: 109472
Summary: [13 regression] False unread/unassigned warning for
variable in local package
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
PR108783?
Anyway, will have a look now.
zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230411 (experimental) (GCC)
~/gcc/scratch_build/gcc$ echo -n g:; git -C ../../scratch rev-parse HEAD^
g:b8e32978e3d9e3b88cd4f441edfdebfa395a5c26
(the commit applied on top of this is a maintainer-scripts/ edit)
I don't have a vanilla build of current releases/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109473
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE during GIMPLE pass: |ICE during GIMPLE pass:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99982
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61615
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109473
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #30 from maic ---
This bug still exists for our project. To reproduce:
# g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 13.0.1 20230404 (Red Hat 13.0.1-0)
# cat /tmp/2.cpp
const int &Select(const int &i, const bool &b) { return i; }
int main() {
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98450
maic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 98450, which changed state.
Bug 98450 Summary: Inconsistent Wunused-variable warning for std::array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98450
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #13 from Alex Coplan ---
Clang recognizes the "cxx_defaulted_functions" feature to detect whether "=
default" functions are supported.
It's clear that __has_feature (cxx_defaulted_functions) should evaluate to 1
for -std=c++11 and ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41742
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96882
--- Comment #11 from David Crocker ---
As the master branch was updated a year ago according to comment 10, does this
mean that there is now a stable release of gcc that incudes the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
Bug ID: 109474
Summary: chunk_by doesn't work for ranges of proxy references
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109369
--- Comment #8 from Pali Rohár ---
So from the discussion, do I understand correctly that this is rather LD linker
issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Bug ID: 109475
Summary: How to check for default compiler warnings in g++
8.4.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>So we can say that these are the only two that are default enabled?
No in fact -Wformat-security is not enabled by default in the released version
of GCC from the FSF, the distro I know that enables it by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #2 from Jorge Pinto Sousa ---
> No in fact -Wformat-security is not enabled by default in the released
> version of GCC from the FSF, the distro I know that enables it by default is
> both Debian and Ubuntu.
Ah so the ones that co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>but then some warnings despite being listed there were not triggered:
https://godbolt.org/z/GGnjcjxKh
You get the trigraph warning if you don't supply any options. -std=c++14 option
enables -trigraphs opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Jorge Pinto Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #6 from Jorge Pinto Sousa ---
Let me rephrase, Im sorry maybe I was too broad. For any specific gcc binary,
> /usr/bin/gcc-8 -Q --help=warnings | grep enabled
Will give me the list of warnings enabled by default?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
Bug ID: 109476
Summary: Missing optimization for 8bit/8bit multiplication /
regression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
--- Comment #1 from Wilhelm M ---
Inetristingly changing the function to
uint16_t mul(const uint8_t a, const uint16_t b) {
return static_cast((b >> 8) + 1) * a ;
}
produces optimal
mul(unsigned char, unsigned int):
subi r23,lo8(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
Bug ID: 109477
Summary: [13 regression] ICE: internal compiler error:
verify_flow_info failed (error: returns_twice call is
not first in basic block 8) when building busybox
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104312
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54833&action=edit
wget.i (reduced)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
In DOM3 I see
901970 range_on_entry (Result$16_552) to BB 120
<...>
Equivalence update! : _143 has range : [irange] TokenKind [22, 22] NONZERO
0x16 refining range to :[irange] TokenKind [22, 22] NONZER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54834&action=edit
wget.i (reduced further, cleaned up, check)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
See also PR109469 and PR109410.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 54835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54835&action=edit
in progress patch
THe fix for PR 108139 disallowed an equivalences with a PHI because it may be a
one way equ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109478
Bug ID: 109478
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr104989.C -std=gnu++14 (internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
Serves me right for only checking vector (which worked) and vector
(which didn't) and not bothering to check vector const (which also doesn't
work) and thus overly complicating the bug report.
I got too exci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108815
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5582ad0afb051a76231b2959487f4ef1746df283
commit r13-7142-g5582ad0afb051a76231b2959487f4ef1746df283
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Apr 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #12 from Huaqi ---
Hello, this is the command used to configure gcc
/work/gcc/configure --target=riscv64-unknown-elf --host=i686-w64-mingw32
--prefix=/work/LocalInstall/win32/newlibc/2023.04-eng2/gcc --disable-shared
--di
sable-thre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #13 from Huaqi ---
Hello, I didn't take a try with other mingw gcc version, locally I just revert
304c7d44a2212e6fd618587331cea2c266dc10bf commit, then it works for me.
Thanks
Huaqi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109479
Bug ID: 109479
Summary: [RISC-V] Build with rv64gc_zve32x_zvl64b should fail
but actually not
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
