https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86859
Bug ID: 86859
Summary: error: expansion pattern contains no parameter pack
when a pack from introduced in a capture is used in
decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84202
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58689
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
Summary|Enhance retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84203
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
/root-gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180804 (experimental) [trunk revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86856
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64-*-linux
--- Comment #4 from nightst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86857
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86857
Bug ID: 86857
Summary: configure sprintf with target-specific details
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86571
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.3.0, 8.2.0
--- Comment #5 from Martin S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86571
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Aug 4 22:14:41 2018
New Revision: 263312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86571 - AIX NaNQ and NaNS output format conflicts wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86856
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #0)
> When building the compiler to target x86_64-w64-mingw32, the warnings listed
> below appear. I tried making them be %zu instead of %z, but that didn't
> help. Maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86767
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
This should fix it. More testing needed.
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -3950,6 +3950,16 @@ cxx_eval_statement_list (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree
t,
for (i = tsi_start (t); !tsi_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86856
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike ---
Final set:
../../../gccsvn/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c:3459:34: warning: format '%u' expects
argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 4 has type 'gimple*' [-Wformat=]
../../../gccsvn/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c:3459:34: wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86856
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike ---
Additional format warnings:
../../../gccsvn/gcc/gimple-fold.c: In function 'bool
gimple_fold_builtin_strncpy(gimple_stmt_iterator*, tree, tree, tree)':
../../../gccsvn/gcc/gimple-fold.c:1668:22: warning: unkno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86856
Bug ID: 86856
Summary: Warning: unknown conversion type for
ASM_OUTPUT_REG_PUSH and ASM_OUTPUT_REG_POP
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84184
Ulya changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skvadrik at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12 from Ul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86853
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Jason Duerstock from comment #3)
> This bit python3.7 as well on ia64:
I believe you can replace -O3 w/ -O2 as a workaround when building for IA64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
Jason Duerstock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason.duerstock at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86091
Vasili Burdo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86852
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86116
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Regtesting the patch in comment 2 shows the following failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dummy_procedure_4.f90 -O (test for errors, line 28)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_30.f90 -O (test for errors,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86116
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem can be fixed by removing the following piece of code:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 45521, which changed state.
Bug 45521 Summary: [F08] GENERIC resolution with ALLOCATABLE/POINTER and
PROCEDURE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Aug 4 15:37:23 2018
New Revision: 263308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-04 Janus Weil
PR fortran/45521
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86855
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente ---
I have indeed worked-around with
const __m128i neg = _mm_set_epi32(0,0,0x8000,0);
__m128i ret = __m128i(_mm_sub_ps(v5, v3));
return __m128(_mm_xor_si128(ret,neg));
const __m256i neg = _mm256_set_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86855
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
It happens during inlining.
If I write instead:
const __m128 neg={0.0f,0.0f,-0.0f,-0.0f};
then the front-end already turns it into
const __m128 neg = { 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 };
You really need -fsigned-zeros to co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86855
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente ---
looks more undefined behavior as
const __m128 neg = _mm_set_ps(0.0f,0.0f,-0.0f,-0.0f);
return _mm_xor_ps(_mm_sub_ps(v5, v3), neg);
with -O3 compiles in
xorps .LC0(%rip), %xmm0
ret
.LC0:
.long 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86852
--- Comment #3 from Michael Veksler ---
I agree that this is a ridiculous example. That's why there should be an
official DR to it. It is a bad idea to have each compiler, do a different thing
-- that's why there is a C++ standard. clang are stic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #17)
> Huh, sounds possible. However, I see the buggy behavior also with sde64 (on
> the same machine where I also see it in real HW, see comment 16).
Another machi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86855
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
More precisely -ffast-math implies -fno-signed-zeros.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56491
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|86754 |68800
--- Comment #3 from janu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54384
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86153
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Aug 4 10:09:21 2018
New Revision: 263307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263307&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/86153
* g++.dg/pr83239.C (dg-options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86153
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Aug 4 10:01:54 2018
New Revision: 263306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/86153
* g++.dg/pr83239.C (dg-options)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86852
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Michael Veksler from comment #0)
> According to
> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/unordered_map/deduction_guides
>
> Deduction guides for unodrered_map:
> template,
> clas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86852
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is https://wg21.link/lwg3025
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #17)
> However, I see the buggy behavior also with sde64 (on
> the same machine where I also see it in real HW, see comment 16).
But then again, I don't see it with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86855
Bug ID: 86855
Summary: REGRESSON: [8.0] -Ofast optimize away
mm_set_ps(0.0f,0.0f,-0.0f,0.0f);
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
44 matches
Mail list logo
