https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86876
Bug ID: 86876
Summary: friend typedef'ed class in template class can not
compile
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
--- Comment #18 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The example by posted on May 20, 2017 on c.l.f. improved by Stefano Zaghi below
shows a factor of 10-20 improvement now in gfortran 9.0.0 including the work by
Thomas Koenig.
$ ./a.out
Elapsed CPU time =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86875
--- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro ---
Created attachment 44515
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44515&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86875
Bug ID: 86875
Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy, at
cp/pt.c:15478
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66811
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54664
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #1)
> > Also seen for 4.9.1 and 4.10.0 i.e. trunk r212879.
>
> 4.10.0 became 5.0
...and regardless of which way it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 52504, which changed state.
Bug 52504 Summary: (unreachable) out of bounds access in
thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52504
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44756
Bug 44756 depends on bug 52504, which changed state.
Bug 52504 Summary: (unreachable) out of bounds access in
thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52504
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52504
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52551
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Is interix even still a thing or did it get deprecated or something?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25914
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #7)
> On 2018-05-07 4:05 PM, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Did this proposal ever happen?
> Yes:
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/psi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86718
--- Comment #2 from zhonghao at pku dot org.cn ---
My gcc:
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc9.0/configu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86872
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86873
--- Comment #3 from ben at tawesoft dot co.uk ---
Thanks for directing me to the appropriate channel
Here is the link to the matching glibc bug report those anyone following this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23489
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86874
Bug ID: 86874
Summary: std::swap on std::variant fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86873
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> libmcheck is from glibc, please report it to them.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86873
Bug ID: 86873
Summary: "gcc -lmcheck" aborts on free when using
posix_memalign
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86861
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71727
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86872
Bug ID: 86872
Summary: [9 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
profiledbootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86861
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Great, thanks for testing it. Is it fixed for 64-bit as well as 32-bit? I was
> concerned that "the size of a word" might actually be imprecis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86871
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44511|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86871
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Managed to get rid of templates. Looks like use of uninitialized 'i' is somehow
the culprit:
int *f;
struct g {
g() {
f = new int;
aj = f;
}
int &operator[](int h) { return *(aj + h); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86861
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Great, thanks for testing it. Is it fixed for 64-bit as well as 32-bit? I was
concerned that "the size of a word" might actually be imprecise and should be
sizeof(void*) not sizeof(int).
I'll commit a slig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86807
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Aug 6 21:47:54 2018
New Revision: 263344
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263344&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86807
* config/pa/pa.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECUL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86861
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> Thew new 18_support/new_aligned.cc test FAILs on Solaris 10 (sparc and x86),
>> which lacks align
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Alexander Zaitsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zamazan4ik at tut dot by
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57891
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Right, we're still hashing this out on the mailing list. But I expect it to be
fixed soon.
There are similar cases not handled by my current patch, but I'll work on those
next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57891
--- Comment #9 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
This problem still exists in the trunk (cf. https://godbolt.org/g/bRf18i).
Clang correctly keeps rejecting it (cf. https://godbolt.org/g/egcNtV). Both
use the following MWE:
template
struct X {
static
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-bootstrap
--with-multilib-list=m64
--prefix=/home/slyfox/dev/git/gcc-x86_64/../gcc-native-quick-installed
--disable-nls CFLAGS='-O0 ' CXXFLAGS='-O0 '
--with-sysroot=/usr/x86_64-HEAD-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180806 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86849
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86849
--- Comment #1 from Richard Smith ---
Interestingly, GCC does appear to suppress guaranteed copy elision if the class
has virtual base classes.
Perhaps GCC's approach to this problem is to assume that a function returning a
T by value cannot to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763
--- Comment #12 from Paul Brannan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> The following seems to work, will test.
>
> Index: gcc/cp/class.c
> ===
> --- gcc/cp/class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86870
Bug ID: 86870
Summary: Declaration disambiguation is too greedy
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86857
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
A configure test can only test what sprintf does for the host, not for the
target, so this would always need to be a target hook.
Even with a hook, it would not surprise me if e.g. results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86767
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression] continue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86767
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 6 16:46:13 2018
New Revision: 263340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86767
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_statement_list): H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86869
Bug ID: 86869
Summary: ICE when taking address of array member of __memx
struct pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86153
--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
this run
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr83239.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
< FAIL: g++.dg/pr83239.C -std=gnu++11 scan-tree-dump-not optimized
"_ZNSt6vectorIiSaIiEE17_M_default_appendEm"
< FAIL: g+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86868
Bug ID: 86868
Summary: cc1: warning: stack probing requires
'-maccumulate-outgoing-args' for correctness
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So "obsolete" works, and "offtopic" doesn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I tagged #c2 as obsolete, and it is hidden, so this already works. Yay!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I meant *test* comment. Doh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86807, which changed state.
Bug 86807 Summary: spu port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86807
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86807
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86807
--- Comment #1 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Aug 6 14:40:56 2018
New Revision: 263335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[spu, commit] Define TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATION_SAFE_VALUE
The SPU proce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Zack Weinberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zackw at panix dot com
--- Comment #26 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I haven't CC'd Frédéric yet, let's decide if we really want this or not first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86867
Bug ID: 86867
Summary: New bugzilla comment tag to mark comments as obsolete
or irrelevant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86866
Aleksey Konovalov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86866
--- Comment #2 from Aleksey Konovalov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think you forgot to the flush as required. The mmx programming model
> requires the user to do it.
You are right. Calling _m_empty() solves problem
Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86866
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86866
Bug ID: 86866
Summary: MMX intrinsics / x87 registers aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86861
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86860
--- Comment #2 from Michael Veksler ---
Sounds reasonable. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86864
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #53 from Christophe Lyon ---
Sorry, .exe files are too large even after xz compression, I'm not allowed to
attach them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86860
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Michael Veksler from comment #0)
> The above function does not seem to be part of the standard, and it seems
It's (3) at https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/basic_ostream/operator_ltlt2
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #52 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44510&action=edit
execution trace of KO ELF file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #51 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44509
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44509&action=edit
execution trace of OK ELF file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #50 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44508
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44508&action=edit
objdump of KO ELF file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #49 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44507&action=edit
objdump of OK ELF file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #48 from Christophe Lyon ---
I've reproduced the problem on armeb with the patch posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg00208.html
The code generated for the testcase is the same with and without your patch, so
I gu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
Bug ID: 86865
Summary: [9 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O2
-floop-parallelize-all -fstack-reuse=none -fwrapv
-fno-tree-ch -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-dominator-opts
-fno-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86091
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86662
--- Comment #3 from jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jozefl
Date: Mon Aug 6 10:29:17 2018
New Revision: 263332
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263332&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86662
* gcc/tree.c (build_common_tree_nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86864
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #11 from stli at linux dot ibm.com ---
Hi,
I've retested the samples with gcc 7, 8 and head from 2018-07-20, but there are
still issues:
The examples foo1 and foo2 are okay.
The issue in example foo3 is still present (see description
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86637
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 44506
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44506&action=edit
Testcase #2
Another testcase for this PR w/ different backtrace. W/ this testcase
optrecord_json_writer::inlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini ---
That's good to know, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86863
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
75 matches
Mail list logo
