https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43644
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8a6945c6ea22efa4d5e42fe1922d2b27953c8cd
commit r14-554-gd8a6945c6ea22efa4d5e42fe1922d2b27953c8cd
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Sun May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
Jason Liam changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
--- Comment #4 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I meant to write:
> Concepts are not supposed to error out if there was an error in substitution.
> So this is all by design of the language.
(In reply to Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49959
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55016
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55016&action=edit
Patch
For some reason it didn't make it to the mailing list yet. Will figure out why
in a few. patches 2 and 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>clang does not error out either.
Nor does MSVC :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I meant to write:
Concepts are not supposed to error out if there was an error in substitution.
So this is all by design of the language.
;
If you do:
static_assert(test);
GCC will tell you know test is false even:
:10:15: error: static assertion failed
10 | static_assert(test);
| ^~~
:10:15: note: constraints not satisfied
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20230506/include/c++/14.0.0/concepts:57:15:
re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
Bug ID: 109763
Summary: GCC accepts invalid program involving
decltype(classtype::memberfunction) when used with
concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55015
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55015&action=edit
Better patch for GCC 13+
Test which I am testing and committing (will be committing to the GCC 13 branch
too b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
aarch64_isa_flags has been uint64_t since r10-593-g28108a534165 so yes it broke
since r12-8000-g14814e20161d when aarch64_simd_switcher was introduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.3|12.4
Summary|[13/14 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109662
--- Comment #11 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
What about std=2008 ?
On Sat, 6 May 2023, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 14:45:39 +
> From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
> To: John Harper
> Subject: [Bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.2|12.3
Summary|[AArch64]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
--- Comment #1 from Dave Murphy ---
Created attachment 55014
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55014&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Bug ID: 109762
Summary: [AArch64] gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.cc:
mismatched sizes for flags variables
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #7 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
1) Can you please still submit a proposal to the STD/ISO committee so that abs
(besides copysign/signbit) ALWAYS works ?
2) What do you think about my proposal for a C++ interface quadmath.hpp ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 9 produced:
:20:55: error: 'class outer' has no member named 'on_nested_ctor'
20 | explicit nested(outer& o)
noexcept(noexcept(o.on_nested_ctor())) :
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #2 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
I don't see how completeness of outer is related to nested's destructor. Or put
it another way, how nested's destructor noexcept specification has anything to
do with outer, whether it is completed o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is correct beahvior because outer is not complete until the outer
is closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
Bug ID: 109761
Summary: Nested class destructor's noexcept specification
incorrectly considered as too loose compared to the
outer class
Product: gcc
Version: 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
--- Comment #15 from Luke Dalessandro ---
Thanks for looking at this. I'd like to report it back to boost as an issue,
but I want to make sure I understand what to tell them.
1. The error produce by Andrew's reduction ("error: satisfaction of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #42 from Andrew Pinski ---
The patch is simple after recent cleanups:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
index f14b7e8b7e6..41fea78dc8d 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
@@ -40
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||51964
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> I will implement this match pattern since that is all that is needed now
> with phiopt using match.
Funny I came up with the same match patterns twice now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95729, which changed state.
Bug 95729 Summary: Failure to optimize away certain returns when the condition
to reach them is a calculation that already results in that value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=957
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #5)
> >> Again, what do you mean by "quadmath"?
>
> __float128 https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/tree/master/libquadmath
Well that's even more confusing/confused :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #5 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
>> Again, what do you mean by "quadmath"?
__float128 https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/tree/master/libquadmath
This is not to be confused with C++23 std::float128_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #3)
> >> libstdc++ doesn't depend on libquadmath and the __float128 support is
> >> there very limited.
> Yes, exactly. There should be nothing of quadmath in the std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109760
Bug ID: 109760
Summary: riscv Internal compiler error in extract_insn after
addition of XTheadCondMov
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #3 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
>> libstdc++ doesn't depend on libquadmath and the __float128 support is there
>> very limited.
Yes, exactly. There should be nothing of quadmath in the std implementations of
C/C++. But in bits/st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Bisection using the original preprocessed code shows it started to ICE with
> r13-4937 although maybe that just added an assertion to catch a latent bug.
An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I think GCC 13 is correct to reject it (but not correct to ICE!)
Either way, I don't see how it can be a libstdc++ bug, the concept is defined
the same way, it's the compiler that diagnoses the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93447
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||102138
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71336
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
So it should be possible to extend the match pattern for what was the
two_value_replacement replacement to do this too.
The main thing is instead of difference by 1, the difference of the two
constants shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||89018, 59424
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109759
Bug ID: 109759
Summary: UBSAN error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit
type 'long unsigned int'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106677
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I don't know if this related to the original issue but in .optimized we
have now:
# RANGE [irange] unsigned char [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1
# SR.115_117 = PHI <_119(9), SR.115_121(7)>
# RANGE [irange] uns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36629645d5ba6a6612c87af1fe7249ea1fb8cdc5
commit r13-7302-g36629645d5ba6a6612c87af1fe7249ea1fb8cdc5
Author: Dan Horák
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95489, which changed state.
Bug 95489 Summary: Failure to optimize x && (x & y) to x & y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95489
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33157
Bug 33157 depends on bug 33158, which changed state.
Bug 33158 Summary: missed store sinking opportunity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33158
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33158
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
Bug ID: 109758
Summary: quadmath abs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libquadmath
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109522
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> We also correctly reject:
I should say without an ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109522
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be6c13d5cef6fd9ca97dea7a6f5fbf93c51235b5
commit r14-544-gbe6c13d5cef6fd9ca97dea7a6f5fbf93c51235b5
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sat Apr 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|ice-on-valid-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90390
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1521 Seems related
to this too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu |
Host|powerpc64-unknown-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathan.poelen at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:043550bceea7881163bba5d8a0486bb100a05809
commit r14-542-g043550bceea7881163bba5d8a0486bb100a05809
Author: Dan Horák
Date: Wed Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109757
Bug ID: 109757
Summary: Conversion from lvalue to rvalue without error
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109662
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109662
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96d699196285858df5d1484b4443cf849908662f
commit r14-541-g96d699196285858df5d1484b4443cf849908662f
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Bug ID: 109756
Summary: "internal compiler error: tree check" when using the
[[assume]] attribute with pack expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109690
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109755
Bug ID: 109755
Summary: -Wunused-function underline points at a class, not the
unused method itself
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
78 matches
Mail list logo
