https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106747
--- Comment #5 from Дилян Палаузов ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #4)
> This is fixed on tip. Want to backport the patch to the GCC 12 branch?
This is a regression. It would be good if there is a correction on the GCC 12
branc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A slight change in the variable makes the problem to go away. It looks
like a latent bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Are you going to post the patch or should I?
Can you do it? I don't have time to add a testcase and to double check all of
the RIDs. I just did the few I saw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106712
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106755
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2)
> So the tests (I've removed all static inline usage and always use
> -fno-inline) pass with -O1 and fail with -O2 and -O3. Looking at all of the
> optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78054
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #12 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106759
Bug ID: 106759
Summary: __has_builtin doesn't report
__is_nothrow_constructible as supported
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106745
David Faust changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.faust at oracle dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106749
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103694
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103694
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f682c96048456379729d495b41551a00eac5a3f
commit r12-8716-g1f682c96048456379729d495b41551a00eac5a3f
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106758
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> GCC produces a warning while compiling this also which I think is the same
> issue really:
I should say it is also rejected with -pedantic-errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106758
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC produces a warning while compiling this also which I think is the same
issue really:
```
struct tuple
{
tuple(const float&) { }
};
void bar(tuple) {}
template
void foo1(T value) {bar({value});}
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106758
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Ah, but it should use the tuple(U1&&...) constructor
Oops, no, the inner tuple uses that one, but the outer tuple uses tuple(const
T&...).
Reduced:
struc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106758
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101322
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26
Target|powerpc-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106758
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Benjamin Brock from comment #0)
> The following concept is failing, saying that `bar({{12, 12}, 12})` is an
> invalid expression. I believe it is a valid expression, just with a
> narrowing co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #3)
> No, the __vector_quad and __vector_pair types should only be used for MMA
> support. That's not to say in the future that some other different types
> might pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Regression: go version does |[12 Regression] Regression:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106758
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
But clang does reject this:
struct tuple1
{
int a;
};
struct tuple3
{
tuple1 a0;
float b0;
};
void bar1(tuple3 tuple) {}
template
concept test_expression = requires(T value) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #4)
> Thanks for the comments! One patch guarding these types is attached, it can
> fix the ICE.
That won't work, because that's what we used to do! :-) In PR96125, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106758
Bug ID: 106758
Summary: [concepts] Narrowing conversion inside brace-enclosed
initializer list reported as invalid expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106755
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> So yes there is aliasing violation as you do the store as vui128_t aka
> "__vector unsigned __int128" (which has the same aliasing set) as "__int128"
> but then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757
Bug ID: 106757
Summary: Incorrect "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0"
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux,|powerpc64-linux,
|aar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux |powerpc64-linux,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
On x86_64 we get:
(jump_insn 5 2 8 2 (parallel [
(asm_operands/v ("# %0") ("") 0 []
[]
[
(label_ref:DI 8)
] /app/example.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26
Summary|internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
--- Comment #11 from Simon Marchi ---
Awesome, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98247
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Seems to work:
Does not warn for provided example:
https://godbolt.org/z/Wa3E8Mdqr
If I increase the memset to access one beyond, it complains:
https://godbolt.org/z/K6Wcneh8Y
with the caveat th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 81159, which changed state.
Bug 81159 Summary: New warning idea: -Wself-move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0abb78dda084a14b3d955757c6431fff71c263f3
commit r13-2227-g0abb78dda084a14b3d955757c6431fff71c263f3
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106753
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But it seems reasonable that they should write:
(void) 123_disgusting;
to silence a warning if they're really creating a literal just for its side
effects.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98247
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106748
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106755
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
So the tests (I've removed all static inline usage and always use -fno-inline)
pass with -O1 and fail with -O2 and -O3. Looking at all of the optimizations
enabled by -O2 that are not in -O1 and using -fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106747
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This is fixed on tip. Want to backport the patch to the GCC 12 branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106756
--- Comment #2 from S. Davis Herring ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> "Declaring a class to be a friend implies that private and protected
> members
> of the class granting friendship can be named in the base-specifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106756
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106755
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106756
Bug ID: 106756
Summary: Overbroad friendship for nested classes
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44402
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106755
Bug ID: 106755
Summary: Incorrect code gen for altivec intrinsics with
constant inputs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 106647, which changed state.
Bug 106647 Summary: [C++23] P2362 - Remove non-encodable wide character
literals and multicharacter wide character literals
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106647
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106647
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106647
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dad2d3e003f1a9885cb1fa0f67baf50f62d57b06
commit r13-2221-gdad2d3e003f1a9885cb1fa0f67baf50f62d57b06
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106747
--- Comment #3 from Дилян Палаузов ---
installing gcc installs two binaries:gccgo and go.
The first is OK:
$ gccgo --version
gccgo (GCC) 12.1.1 20220814
Copyright (C) 2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106747
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106744
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[13 Regression] phio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106743
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lingling.kong7 at gmail dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106742
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced to:
$ cat rtmutex_api.i
struct task_struct *get_current();
struct task_struct {
int __state;
} __attributert_mutex_slowlock_locked() {
asm goto("" : : : : __label_warn_on);
__builtin_unreac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Leroy ---
Same problem with at least gcc 11.3, 10.3, 9.5, 8.5 and 5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106753
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102783
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Thanks for the pointer, I'll find Marc's work.
Since I had forgotten where it was, let me write here that it is git branch
/users/glisse/fenv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106754
Bug ID: 106754
Summary: compute_control_dep_chain over-estimates domain
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104430
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The ICE for comment 7 looks a little different, so a new test does seem
worthwhile:
Bad: 539 /home/remote/jwakely/gcc-bisect-objs/f951.r12-7525
ice.f90:7:30:
7 | forall( iix=1:4, iiy=1:4 )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104430
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The patch also fixes an ICE for this code, taken from
https://stackoverflow.com/q/73498995/981959
program main
integer, dimension(1:2) :: iii
real, dimension(1:4,1:4,1:2) :: myArray
associat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106753
Bug ID: 106753
Summary: Give -Wunused-value warning for user-defined literal
expressions with discarded result
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106752
Bug ID: 106752
Summary: [OpenMP] reverse offload – avoid emitting 'nohost'
variant on the host / cleanup
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Leroy ---
Created attachment 53512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53512&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751
Bug ID: 106751
Summary: internal compiler error: in purge_dead_edges, at
cfgrtl.cc:3347
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106744
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106750
Bug ID: 106750
Summary: Memory leak calling section of derived type containing
`allocatable` entries
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106749
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Much already done in gcc-11 and gcc-12:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html#status.iso.2023
See also
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support#C.2B.2B23_library_features
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106749
Bug ID: 106749
Summary: Implement C++23 library features
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106579
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk now. Not really sure what to do for the backport. Perhaps
make the builtin with a space in the name and do the FE expansion only for the
abi_kind == 17 cases?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106579
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c2d6aa1be2ea85e751852834986ae52d58134d3
commit r13-2217-g0c2d6aa1be2ea85e751852834986ae52d58134d3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106579
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db630423a97ec6690a8eb0e5c3cb186c91e3740d
commit r13-2216-gdb630423a97ec6690a8eb0e5c3cb186c91e3740d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105105
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:387e6f1570816915f8d198eec71c666439f41814
commit r13-2215-g387e6f1570816915f8d198eec71c666439f41814
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 106648, which changed state.
Bug 106648 Summary: [C++23] P2071 - Named universal character escapes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106648
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106741
--- Comment #3 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
If I'm reading the log right, it's stages 2 and 3 where the warnings appear,
while stage 1 (using gcc10) don't expose such a warning. Interestingly the
warnings do appear (once) when doing cross bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106748
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106748
Bug ID: 106748
Summary: ICE in ix86_avx256_split_vector_move_misalign, at
config/i386/i386-expand.cc:743 since
r13-2111-g6910cad55ffc330d
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106099
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:530dc5aaaeb67c223fd0e3986d635408dcea4343
commit r13-2213-g530dc5aaaeb67c223fd0e3986d635408dcea4343
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106648
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb4879ab9053085a59b8d1594ef76487948bba7e
commit r13-2212-geb4879ab9053085a59b8d1594ef76487948bba7e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106725
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022, dthorn at google dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106725
>
> --- Comment #4 from Daniel Thornburgh ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from co
90 matches
Mail list logo
