https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106821
Bug ID: 106821
Summary: Incorrect behavior when using type alias template
containing unevaluated lambda expression in a template
context
Product: gcc
Version: 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Excellent! Thanks, Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101322
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d4f60f206cf1100b7484d708f6c913762618676
commit r12-8740-g2d4f60f206cf1100b7484d708f6c913762618676
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106815
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #8 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to baoshan from comment #6)
> > > really of unknown alignment then sharing the lui might not work.
> > Can you elaborate why shareing the lu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 90885, which changed state.
Bug 90885 Summary: GCC should warn about 2^16 and 2^32 and 2^64
[-Wxor-used-as-pow]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to baoshan from comment #6)
> > really of unknown alignment then sharing the lui might not work.
> Can you elaborate why shareing the lui might not work?
Linker relaxation not coming in and relaxi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bedfca647a9e9c1adadd8924f3ee0ab4189424e0
commit r13-2386-gbedfca647a9e9c1adadd8924f3ee0ab4189424e0
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #6 from baoshan ---
> really of unknown alignment then sharing the lui might not work.
Can you elaborate why shareing the lui might not work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #5 from baoshan ---
Per Andrew's request:
For GCC built for RISC-V,
With the following code:
struct sss_t {
int i;
int j;
} sss;
extern char array[sizeof(struct sss_t )];
void foo()
{
struct sss_t *p = (struct sss_t *)ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106820
Bug ID: 106820
Summary: internal compiler error: in
function_and_variable_visibility [for
std::dynamic_pointer_cast use via module]
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105659
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5ad6f8415171798adaff5787400505ce9882144
commit r13-2385-gd5ad6f8415171798adaff5787400505ce9882144
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Tue A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103499
Mark Millard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markmigm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106817
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
> With the testcase from comment #3, it becomes:
>
> a = {CLOBBER};
> D.4223 = a + 1;
> copy (&a, &D.4223);
Right. And with -Wall one gets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106819
Bug ID: 106819
Summary: [13 Regression] NaN != NaN comparisons return false at
-O2 since r13-2338
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106817
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> I see:
>
> D.4225 = a + 1;
> a = {CLOBBER};
> copy (&D.4225, &a);
>
> so I do not see any failure.
With the testcase from comment #3, it becomes:
a =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106817
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
>
> What am I missing?
The right testcase.
Try this one.
module m
implicit none
contains
subroutine copy(out, in)
integer, intent(in) :: in
integer, intent(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106817
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
--- Comment #4 from Simon Rainer ---
That's weird, I still get the following with your patch applied:
main:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
subq$8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
call_Z5_Z1fvv@PLT
movl$1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Please attach or paste the testcase into the bug report instead of a godbolt
link too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely known alignment or not.
Riscv targets are sensitive to alignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #1 from baoshan ---
With 'extern', four 'sb' are ued to store value into "p->i";
while without 'extern', only one 'sw' is used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
Bug ID: 106818
Summary: code is genereated differently with or without
'extern'
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6aa7d45b502c01f8703c8d2cee2690f9aa8e282
commit r13-2382-gb6aa7d45b502c01f8703c8d2cee2690f9aa8e282
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #31 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #30)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #29)
> >
> > but if your patch regtests fine then you should proceed.
>
> Ok, let’s see how good it is.
> Assigning.
It seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106817
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
PR92178 is vaguely related.
The tests are very similar, but that other PR is about allocatables whereas
this one isn’t, so I think they are different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106817
Bug ID: 106817
Summary: clobber ordering problem when an actual intent(in)
argument depends on the value of an intent(out)
argument
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Simon Rainer from comment #2)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > Like this?
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.cc
> > b/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.cc
> > index fd212262f50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
--- Comment #2 from Simon Rainer ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Like this?
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.cc
> b/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.cc
> index fd212262f50..4904e4d71b3 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-02
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #9)
> I'm curious why the zero_extend behaves so differently to a sign_extend,
> perhaps a missing simplification or pattern. Presumably the CONCAT in the
> debug_insn is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106746
--- Comment #9 from Roger Sayle ---
I'm curious why the zero_extend behaves so differently to a sign_extend,
perhaps a missing simplification or pattern. Presumably the CONCAT in the
debug_insn is there whether or not a sign_extend or zero_ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #3)
> I don't have the environment to build gcc locally, so I can't readily test
> trunk. But I have been told the same issue reproduces with gcc-12
> 20220319-1ubuntu1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact, it's already backported to gcc 12.2, as
g:61076545cb3c3cbc79036eff8bc46b0c2083730c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh good, I hoped that would be the case. I was already planning to backport
that change to gcc-11 and gcc-12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808
--- Comment #10 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> >
> > Do you want ODR violations? Because that's how you get ODR violations.
>
> I understand this, but my p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106816
Bug ID: 106816
Summary: noreturn/pure attributes are not set correctly on
multiversioned functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808
--- Comment #8 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to andysem from comment #6)
> > So do you think this is a problem in Boost.Filesystem?
>
> I don't know yet, I can't reproduce it with the B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106814
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I used download_prerequistes before the build.
seurer@rain6p1:~/gcc/git/gcc-test$ ./contrib/download_prerequisites --force
2022-09-02 09:12:04
URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/gmp-6.
--disable-multilib
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-2374-20220902172530-gd72ca12b846-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-riscv64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220902 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #56 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50982aa1145fbdb315162349833412639aa8bc4c
commit r11-10232-g50982aa1145fbdb315162349833412639aa8bc4c
Author: Richard Ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106814
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106814
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry, that's make check-mpfr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106814
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Do a bootstrap build then
make checkmpfr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106814
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
How do I reproduce this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 106787, which changed state.
Bug 106787 Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in vect_schedule_slp_node, at
tree-vect-slp.cc:8648 since r13-2288-g61c4c989034548f4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106787
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106787
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106787
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eab511df13ca6abb24c3c2abb0f420a89c91e310
commit r13-2377-geab511df13ca6abb24c3c2abb0f420a89c91e310
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 regression] large|[12 regression] large bison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be1b42de9c151d46c89f9a8f82d4c5839a19ea94
commit r13-2375-gbe1b42de9c151d46c89f9a8f82d4c5839a19ea94
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #55 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #53)
>
> gcc-12 seems to be generating wrong-code for a different unit-test:
I've just pushed my patch to the gcc-12 branch, could you try that please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #54 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3835765ae96d294bb71dd8cb05db543d89725f7b
commit r12-8738-g3835765ae96d294bb71dd8cb05db543d89725f7b
Author: Richard Ear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106814
Bug ID: 106814
Summary: [13 regression] r13-2266-g8bb1df032cc080 breaks some
mpfr tests
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
A real speed improvement to dominated_by_w_unex would record the single known
executable predecessor and successor of each block, for example in rpo_state,
but that's released before PRE eventually calls in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and the dominated_by_p_w_unex issue is that we do
if (succe && EDGE_COUNT (succe->dest->preds) == 1)
{
/* Verify the reached block is only reached through succe.
If there is only o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105463
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105463
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac1fce509ddd99e825073b3a9eab5911ac3dc454
commit r11-10231-gac1fce509ddd99e825073b3a9eab5911ac3dc454
Author: Richard Ear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71579
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, that's my reading of it. I need to check what other compilers do for
__has_virtual_destructor and check the docs. Maybe libstdc++ should only use it
for class types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106808
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #6)
> So do you think this is a problem in Boost.Filesystem?
I don't know yet, I can't reproduce it with the Boost in Fedora 36, and I
haven't looked further.
> I would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105463
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de1ba234311b935b1a38d512e57329d4b6e8354d
commit r12-8737-gde1ba234311b935b1a38d512e57329d4b6e8354d
Author: Richard Earn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #53 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
For later reference, the gcc-11 symptoms disapear in upstream git after commit:
*
https://github.com/google/highway/commit/4fa872a2a0d9944cb5fe761669ac63096607d3a3
gcc-12 seems to be generating wrong-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106813
Bug ID: 106813
Summary: getSiginfo() libgo/runtime/go-signal.c missing Solaris
specific code to get ret.sigpc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> I see the change since r12-4726-g9a27acc30a34b785 which goes from 2.2s to
> 6.3s (checking enabled).
I would have said it's r12-7175-g0f58ba4dd6b25b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
A testcase for this corner case is the following. At -O0 it is
-Wuninitialized, at -O1 it is FRE:
tree FRE : 5.55 ( 70%) 0.00 ( 0%) 5.56 ( 67%)
16k ( 0%)
and at -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106782
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e69134e12551a4289292e3955525f84d99773d31
commit r12-8736-ge69134e12551a4289292e3955525f84d99773d31
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100854
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea.corallo at arm dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106812
--- Comment #1 from Jens Maurer ---
Cross-reference: clang bug https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57519
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106804
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I see the change since r12-4726-g9a27acc30a34b785 which goes from 2.2s to 6.3s
(checking enabled).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106812
Bug ID: 106812
Summary: Throwing a non-copyable exception
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, we're seeing up to 1420 AVAIL entries for a single value (_11574),
the value corresponding to yyvsp_11649->str. Looking at the source I
can easily see how this happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 regression] large bison |[12/13 regression] large
76 matches
Mail list logo
