https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108408
ASSI changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Stromeko at nexgo dot de
--- Comment #6 from ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116121
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
EDG accepts this too.
So in summary it is:
GCC and MSVC reject it for the same reason.
EDG and clang accept it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116121
--- Comment #1 from Jason Liam ---
Note that the error only comes when we use `inline` with the static data
member. If we use the old out of class definition way of doing things then gcc
also starts accepting the code. https://godbolt.org/z/GeYq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51772
ASSI changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Stromeko at nexgo dot de
--- Comment #5 from ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104587
ASSI changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Stromeko at nexgo dot de
--- Comment #1 from ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115524
ASSI changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Stromeko at nexgo dot de
--- Comment #1 from ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116121
Bug ID: 116121
Summary: GCC rejects valid program involving explicit
specialization of static data member without
specializing the class template itself
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116120
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is:
```
v4si f3(v4si a, v4si b, v4si c, v4si d, v4si e, v4si f) {
v4si X = a == b;
v4si Y = c == d;
return ((X^Y) & (e != f)) ? {-1,...} : {0};
}
```
is what we should produce. Note this is still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116120
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
testcase that shows the issue:
```
typedef int v4si __attribute((__vector_size__(1 * sizeof(int;
v4si f1(v4si a, v4si b, v4si c, v4si d, v4si e, v4si f) {
v4si X = a == b ? e : f;
v4si Y = c == d ? e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102677
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116080
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|New tests from |[15 regression] New tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
--- Comment #36 from Sam James ---
Two more fixes are pending review at
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20240506044542.102727-2-xry...@xry111.site/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |FAIL:
|gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116120
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116120
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|Wrong code fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116120
Bug ID: 116120
Summary: Wrong code for (a ? x : y) != (b ? x : y)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116040
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116040
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|powerpc64-linux-gnu,|powerpc64-linux-gnu,
|pow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67947
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamrial at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67920
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116119
maths soso changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113384
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
gcc-13 is okay:
fsub,sgl %fr23L,%fr22L,%fr22L
ldo 8(%r3),%r20
ldo 800(%r20),%r20
ldo 4(%r20),%r20
depw,z %r21,28,29,%r21
add,l %r21,%r20,%r20
fstw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116119
Bug ID: 116119
Summary: Error building gcc 8.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116118
Bug ID: 116118
Summary: dump_properties has not been updated for many new
PROP_*
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113384
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
These fails only when generating PA 2.0 code. The fails don't occur when
generating the default PA 1.1 code.
Wrong code is generated for this line in dependency_58.f90:
b%im = a%im - 0.5
b%re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115561
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3129a2ed6a764c0687efaca9eba53dcf12d1d8a0
commit r15-2361-g3129a2ed6a764c0687efaca9eba53dcf12d1d8a0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115986
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9e9f772c7488ac0c09dd92f28890bdab939771a
commit r15-2362-ga9e9f772c7488ac0c09dd92f28890bdab939771a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116117
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116117
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116117
Bug ID: 116117
Summary: late_warn_uninitialized should just split edges
directly instead of using the pass manager
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116116
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 92954.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116116
Bug ID: 116116
Summary: -Wshadow false negative
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115823
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58626|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116007
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Thanks for all the discussion, but I'm confused about what the conclusion
actually is. Could you help me understand what's the plan moving forward?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116086
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88545
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e69456ff9a54ba3e9c93842b05757b7d8fff6d9d
commit r15-2356-ge69456ff9a54ba3e9c93842b05757b7d8fff6d9d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105475
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116098
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 27.07.2024 um 02:38 schrieb pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116098
>
> --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116113
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
42 matches
Mail list logo
