https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93158
Bug ID: 93158
Summary: Coarray ICE when module and submodule are in separate
files
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141
--- Comment #7 from Madhur Chauhan ---
As far as I can tell optimal asm generated should be like:
mov-load from on array
mul or preferably mulx with a memory source from the other array
add + adc into 128-bit answer register
adc reg, 0 to accum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93141
--- Comment #6 from Madhur Chauhan ---
As far as I can tell optimal asm generated should be like:
mov-load from on array
mul or preferably mulx with a memory source from the other array
add + adc into 128-bit answer register
adc reg, 0 to accum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93157
Bug ID: 93157
Summary: gcc should use -mabi=elfv2 on powerpc64-*-linux-*musl*
target by default.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to jim from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > (In reply to jim from comment #3)
> > > Hi Andrew, thank you for the prompt investigation.
> > > I'm probably just being den
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
--- Comment #5 from jim at meyering dot net ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to jim from comment #3)
> > Hi Andrew, thank you for the prompt investigation.
> > I'm probably just being dense, but how can the compiler ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93046
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Jan 5 00:49:14 2020
New Revision: 279884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/93046
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_gimplify_init_expr): Don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to jim from comment #3)
> Hi Andrew, thank you for the prompt investigation.
> I'm probably just being dense, but how can the compiler ever generate code
> for that null_ptr function that results in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
--- Comment #3 from jim at meyering dot net ---
Hi Andrew, thank you for the prompt investigation.
I'm probably just being dense, but how can the compiler ever generate code for
that null_ptr function that results in -1?
Your comment shows you kn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is related to the compiler saving the return address for noreturn
sibcalls, like in
void g(void) __attribute__((noreturn));
void f(void) { g(); }
Maybe we should have an option like "-fimprove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the best way to implement null_ptr really (without the need for the
attribute is the following):
/* Return NULL.
Usual compilers are not able to infer something about the return value. */
static voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
Bug ID: 93156
Summary: abused nonnull attribute evokes new segfault in gcc 10
since Nov 4 commit, 0fb958ab8aa
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82224
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
See
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_236.htm
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1409.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ch3root at openwall dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93155
Bug ID: 93155
Summary: Error when compiling Boost MP11 mp_similar
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
DB changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93154
--- Comment #2 from DB ---
A reduced version, without a variadic pack of functions...
```
#include
void f1(int) {}
template
auto
make_lambda(F f)
{
return [f]
requires std::invocable
(Arg a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93154
--- Comment #1 from DB ---
> preprocessed source:
Ah, whoops. It's not interesting anyway, but maybe I just don't remember how to
do it right... I just passed `-E`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93154
Bug ID: 93154
Summary: can't constrain captured functions to be invocable
with lambda arg - unknown "constraints not satisfied"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
--- Comment #4 from DB ---
Simplifying further, by getting rid of the Other structs/arguments, we get:
```
#include
#include
struct WeirdBase {};
struct WeirdSub: WeirdBase {};
template WeirdSub1>
auto
make_lambda()
{
return [](std:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
--- Comment #3 from DB ---
The pointer-to-member-function and template argument deduction through it is
not required; rather, simply the presence of any other template argument in the
1st position is sufficient:
```
#include
#include
struct W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93050
--- Comment #1 from DB ---
This bug does not seem to occur with
g++ (Debian 9.2.1-21) 9.2.1 20191130
so either it was fixed between 9.2.0 and 9.2.1, or something peculiar to
MSYS2/MinGW64/Windows is causing it.
c -Wall -Wextra -O3 test.cc && ./a.out
Y
--
gcc x86-64 version: g++ (GCC) 10.0.0 20200104 (experimental)
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
--- Comment #2 from DB ---
another reduction: the Args... are not required in the templates (since the
member function takes none), and the same failure/success patterns occur either
way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
--- Comment #1 from DB ---
I believe this is also probably related to the fact that the WeirdSub1 template
argument is coming via a pointer-to-member function, although I haven't 100%
narrowed that down yet, I don't think.
The mentioned ICE can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
Bug ID: 93152
Summary: Order of template args in decl makes std::invocable
fail
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92086
Julian Stecklina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||js at alien8 dot de
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44960
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93151
Bug ID: 93151
Summary: system_error header fails to compile with
-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47590&action=edit
gcc10-pr91369-2.patch
Untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 91369, which changed state.
Bug 91369 Summary: Implement P0784R7: constexpr new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 91369, which changed state.
Bug 91369 Summary: Implement P0784R7: constexpr new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68950
--- Comment #14 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #13)
> I believe this has been fixed properly by the patch for PR fortran/79886 in
> r246203 by adding the following to gcc/fortran/error.c's gfc_format_decoder:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93150
Bug ID: 93150
Summary: (A&N) == CST1 &( ((A&M)==CST2) | ((A&O)==CST3) ) is
not simplified
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87455
--- Comment #6 from Fanael ---
Any hope of getting this fixed in GCC 10? It should just be a matter of
removing Zen[12] from X86_TUNE_SSE_PACKED_SINGLE_INSN_OPTIMAL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 4 08:19:51 2020
New Revision: 279879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279879&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fortran] PR91640 – Fix call to contiguous dummy
PR fortran/91640
43 matches
Mail list logo
