https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86419
--- Comment #10 from Dimitrij Mijoski ---
I was wrong in comment #9. The bug and the proposed fix are ok in comment #7.
While writing some tests for error I discovered yet another bug in UTF-8
decoding. See the example:
// 2 code points, both a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96242
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Thank you, but am I not exempt?
> The only excuses to not send us the preprocessed sources are [...] if you've
> reduced the testcase to a small file that doesn't include any other file [...]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96941
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96946
Bug ID: 96946
Summary: std::shared_ptr makes an "unrelated cast" that causes
Clang's Control Flow Integrity sanitiser to crash
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96945
--- Comment #1 from Federico Kircheis ---
I've made a copy-paste error (I cant change the submitted bug), after B) it
should come C):
Adding and defaulting the constructors, except the move constructor produces
the same code as A): https://go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96945
Bug ID: 96945
Summary: optimizations regression when defaulting copy
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96944
Bug ID: 96944
Summary: call of overloaded is ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96943
Bug ID: 96943
Summary: incomplete type used in nested name specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Nice analysis. Personally I dislike when you get different results from
separate preprocessing, but I don't know if it should be considered a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #31 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #30)
> I'm curious why the preprocessed code in comment 28 doesn't warn,
This was still bugging me, so I looked into it a little bit, and since I had
trouble find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96942
--- Comment #2 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
Created attachment 49185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49185&action=edit
Modified solution with custom allocator based on malloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96942
--- Comment #1 from Dmitriy Ovdienko ---
Created attachment 49184
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49184&action=edit
Original implementation with preallocated buffer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96942
Bug ID: 96942
Summary: std::pmr::monotonic_buffer_resource causes CPU cache
misses
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
tk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||u1049321969 at caramail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
14 matches
Mail list logo