https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106651
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:303976a6076f2839354702fd2caa049fa7cbbdc2
commit r13-2892-g303976a6076f2839354702fd2caa049fa7cbbdc2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107029
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb8f25c5dc9f6d5207c826c2dafe25f68458ceaf
commit r13-2891-gcb8f25c5dc9f6d5207c826c2dafe25f68458ceaf
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85518
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b04208895fed34171eac6bafb60c90048eb1cb0c
commit r13-2887-gb04208895fed34171eac6bafb60c90048eb1cb0c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106652
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b04208895fed34171eac6bafb60c90048eb1cb0c
commit r13-2887-gb04208895fed34171eac6bafb60c90048eb1cb0c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102284
--- Comment #7 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
This may be related. Assigning to another member doesn't end the lifetime of
the active one: https://godbolt.org/z/eMGY5ehnb.
```C++
#include
struct symbol { };
constexpr symbol one{};
str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107024
--- Comment #3 from alex at clmbng dot com ---
Minimal test-case:
struct A { int fun(); };
template
consteval auto aaa() { return A{}; }
template
using aa = decltype(aaa<[]{}>());
template
A a = aa{};
int main()
{
return a<42>.fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
Bug ID: 107046
Summary: [13 Regression] Recent FP range work causing inf-2 to
be miscompiled on rx-elf
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100134
--- Comment #6 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107045#c1 for a minimal
reproducer:
Minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/hxrPvPPhs.
```C++
namespace std {
template struct X {
friend void f();
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107045
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 107045, which changed state.
Bug 107045 Summary: [modules] ICE on instantiation of a ::std class template
with a friend function imported from an importable header
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107045
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107045
--- Comment #1 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/hxrPvPPhs.
```C++
namespace std {
template struct X {
friend void f();
};
}
```
```C++
export module mod;
import "std.hpp";
export std::X v;
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 08:38:56PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
>
> --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107045
Bug ID: 107045
Summary: [modules] ICE on use of std::vector from importable
header
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107044
Bug ID: 107044
Summary: internal compiler error: in
dump_possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at
ipa-devirt.cc:3456
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> I think we need to expand the checking in array.cc
>
> /* Convert components of an array constructor to the type in ts. */
>
> static match
> walk_ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because incremental rebuilds for trunk are not supported. If it works, that's
nice, if it doesn't, it's not a bug. Do a clean build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you get a bootstrap error like this, always try a clean build before
reporting a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107043
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107043
Bug ID: 107043
Summary: range information not used in popcount
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Hm, you have | #define HAVE_AS_COMPRESS_DEBUG 2 which is an invalid value.
Please remove the build directory and reconfigure it. Does it help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 53629
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53629&action=edit
cfg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
It must be toplev config.log file, I will need the one under 'gcc' folder,
thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 53628
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53628&action=edit
config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> That looks like unpatched elfutils. I know you mentioned[1] that you're
> using the latest elfutils but can you please confirm again? Or maybe
> incorrect preprocessed file?
>
> [1] https://sourceware.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107042
Bug ID: 107042
Summary: GCC build error after today's change
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
--- Comment #5 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > > I assume this is elfutils #29614?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Please take a look at the original unreduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
--- Comment #4 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > I assume this is elfutils #29614?
>
> Yes.
>
> Please take a look at the original unreduced testcase I attached here.
That looks like unpatched elfutils
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5840677c146e4317d7fd53697dda60c616d3e58
commit r10-11004-gf5840677c146e4317d7fd53697dda60c616d3e58
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50592ed4703d2e1ade2b197c58b72da0b91933cc
commit r11-10274-g50592ed4703d2e1ade2b197c58b72da0b91933cc
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106656
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 106656, which changed state.
Bug 106656 Summary: [C++23] P2513 - char8_t Compatibility and Portability Fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106656
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106656
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:567329fdd9d65a1e6254206fefff89fa151ba7f3
commit r13-2881-g567329fdd9d65a1e6254206fefff89fa151ba7f3
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107009
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e77d4082fa845f1182641a93cfbae71984244d2
commit r13-2880-g5e77d4082fa845f1182641a93cfbae71984244d2
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106784
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be4b32b9ef69b86b662cb7511b48cd1048a55403
commit r13-2879-gbe4b32b9ef69b86b662cb7511b48cd1048a55403
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78085
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely r13-1942-gc23a9c87cc62bd .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78085
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From REE:
Trying to eliminate extension:
(insn 9 8 15 2 (set (reg:DI 0 ax [orig:88 _3 ] [88])
(sign_extend:DI (reg:SI 0 ax [orig:84 _3 ] [84]))) "a.c":6:9 160
{*extendsidi2_rex64}
(nil))
Tentati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Just a quick note from what I see in GDB. The warning is issued by the 2nd run
of the waccess pass (-fdump-tree-waccess2) for the following statement in bb 22
in pread():
iftmp.21_88 = __pread_alias (_50,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107016
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-26
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107033
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:099a66498bf7a40764002793eba66c881a251b76
commit r13-2878-g099a66498bf7a40764002793eba66c881a251b76
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107023
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107023
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107009
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107009
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2460f7cdef7ef9c971de79271afc0db73687a272
commit r13-2876-g2460f7cdef7ef9c971de79271afc0db73687a272
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107031
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > gfortran's current behavior is correct.
> >
> >
> >12.3.4.4 File position after data transfer
> >
> >In all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> I assume this is elfutils #29614?
Yes.
Please take a look at the original unreduced testcase I attached here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
--- Comment #1 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
recvd is uninitialized and it seems to be preventing optimization of the
fortify macro one way or for some reason. I can take a look at why the
condition does not get folded away but a reproducer witho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107026
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Neumann ---
Yes, commit 386ebf75f4c0342b1f823f4e4aba07abda3288d1 fixes the assert.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107026
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107041
Bug ID: 107041
Summary: [13 Regression] C '-Wenum-int-mismatch' diagnostic for
OpenACC 'acc_on_device'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107033
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-26
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 107037, which changed state.
Bug 107037 Summary: [13 Regression] 541.leela_r compiling fail since r13-2779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107037
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107037
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107037
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6904ed80a26f5216aa3b9ce8377fb50307c8e886
commit r13-2869-g6904ed80a26f5216aa3b9ce8377fb50307c8e886
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Could you share the preprocessed source file in the M3 and M4 cases along with
the full command line used to compile it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107023
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107023
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 10.4.1, 11.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107023
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107024
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Test-case:
#include
#include
#include
template
struct Integral_pack
{
static constexpr size_t data[sizeof...(NN)] = { NN... };
std::vector vec { NN... };
};
template
consteval auto apply_fold
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107024
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107023
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107021
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Yep, it exits here:
>
> #0 __GI_exit (status=1) at exit.c:142
> #1 0x002b0961 in povray_exit (i=1) at
> /home/marxin/Programming/cpu2017/benchspec/CPU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107021
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > >
> > > so I'd call that a testsuite issue.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, how should I fix the verifier? Just skip it if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106982
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3df98807b58df186061ad52ff87cc09ba593e9b
commit r13-2868-gd3df98807b58df186061ad52ff87cc09ba593e9b
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107021
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> >
> > so I'd call that a testsuite issue.
> >
>
> Yep, how should I fix the verifier? Just skip it if the expected value is
> infinite?
No, don't build it wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106919
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107037
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107021
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
>
> so I'd call that a testsuite issue.
>
Yep, how should I fix the verifier? Just skip it if the expected value is
infinite?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107021
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107025
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-26
Ever confir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106921
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Will take a look in next weeks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82877
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlame646 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107033
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107030
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-26
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107039
Bug ID: 107039
Summary: GCC not diagnosing UB in constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Yes, same triplet. We do not (yet) have FDPIC support for ARM in Buildroot (we
have a patch series pending for that).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038
Bug ID: 107038
Summary: [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since
r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107037
Bug ID: 107037
Summary: 541.leela_r compiling fail since r13-2779
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
Interesting
Did you use the same target triplet?
arm*-*-uclinuxfdpiceabi is handled differently from
arm-buildroot-uclinux-uclibcgnueabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Thanks for the feedback. There must be something special in those
configurations, because I did build a Cortex-M4 configuration with gcc 11.3.0
just a few days ago, and it built fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107026
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107018
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
93 matches
Mail list logo
