https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118348
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> I'm not sure this one is caused by my commit.
>
> It fails for me before g:0c5c0c959c2e592b84739f19ca771fa69eb8dfee already.
>
> i.e. at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118206
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106883
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118344
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118392
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118194
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117866
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118369
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
> That's probably the conservative answer for BB vectorization, for loop vect
> we know all those uses will be also in vector code. For BB vectorization
> there is currently no easly reliable check to ensur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118392
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60087
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60087&action=edit
testcase
Next time please attach or paste inline the testcase.
Note attaching has a way to paste into a field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118392
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is auto_diagnostic_group but it looks like it is not working.
if (hidden_p)
{
auto_diagnostic_group d;
pedwarn (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl), 0,
"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118392
Bug ID: 118392
Summary: "-w" fails to fully inhibit "'void a::b()' has not
been declared within a" warning
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #435 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #434)
> Any suggestion on how to proceed here? Oleg, do you maybe want to rebase
> your tree against master? I can re-run all tests and verify whether the
> p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #436 from Oleg Endo ---
Could be relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118017
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/673130.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117962
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118035
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118375
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Ugh, sorry, pasted wrong thing.
It should of course be:
```
a.c: In function ‘main’:
a.c:5:15: error: ‘program_invocation_name’ undeclared (first use in this
function)
5 | char* x = program_invocation_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117997
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
Does it pass with -fno-optimize-crc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am trying to figure out if we should reject the STP or allow it.
The reason why it fails in ldp_fusion1 (which is before RA) is because of this:
```
// Punt on accesses relative to eliminable regs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117997
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118353
--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard ---
One difference might be how many cores are used for the builds.
The more cores how more sensitive they are for parallelism bottlenecks.
And riscv (was) kind of special in that there were just a handful of f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118369
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Sorry, I didn't manage to catch you on IRC today, so continuing here.
Is this conflict considered an issue that will be eventually resolved, or is it
to stay?
I wonder how to proceed; I guess on a shar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
commit r14-11182-g845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109517
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
commit r14-11182-g845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108236
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0eb0ba218968715506c435ca4ff71043e86617c
commit r14-11184-gf0eb0ba218968715506c435ca4ff71043e86617c
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89624
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72fe42c9a095ef9b4125bd65999cd1012dfb73b7
commit r14-11190-g72fe42c9a095ef9b4125bd65999cd1012dfb73b7
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117962
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3590d9f68207861b8973f2812adf02fdba0840ba
commit r14-11183-g3590d9f68207861b8973f2812adf02fdba0840ba
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
commit r14-11182-g845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109976
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
commit r14-11182-g845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
commit r14-11182-g845a0b71c82ad8f1d9967a6f15d10ef402f7f2e5
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e696cac2baa35f011f85878e76039fc3945d241
commit r14-11181-g1e696cac2baa35f011f85878e76039fc3945d241
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118035
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67c457de5a3f74151fc2d0085387127bf9e4e3c5
commit r14-11179-g67c457de5a3f74151fc2d0085387127bf9e4e3c5
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:83fa0822aeec8af2162825976209efb90ca40c87
commit r14-11180-g83fa0822aeec8af2162825976209efb90ca40c87
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dbfc2ff0a84edf6addeaa425272a5beacbbc7db
commit r14-11175-g4dbfc2ff0a84edf6addeaa425272a5beacbbc7db
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117925
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70cea067dd2b101edc6b3710678529eb8ba2eec2
commit r14-11177-g70cea067dd2b101edc6b3710678529eb8ba2eec2
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f73ecaf1957d35a9990735ebe228c8dd6188
commit r14-11178-gf73ecaf1957d35a9990735ebe228c8dd6188
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112349
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f236c897af48c3ae52095a894d57e66065b8ad87
commit r14-11174-gf236c897af48c3ae52095a894d57e66065b8ad87
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117925
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa1e19d821a39d973c4c8c0e8d1d19811d2fa433
commit r14-11176-gaa1e19d821a39d973c4c8c0e8d1d19811d2fa433
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112641
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d650c29562bbb18c1ea5d0064e07f48c177912b
commit r14-11172-g9d650c29562bbb18c1ea5d0064e07f48c177912b
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118363
Edwin Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
case Action::CHANGE:
{
set_pair_pat (change);
change->new_uses = merge_access_arrays (attempt,
input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118391
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=118391
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118188
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116773
Bug 116773 depends on bug 118188, which changed state.
Bug 118188 Summary: aarch64: worse code with -mtune=grace (vs -mtune=generic)
in TSVC s4115
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118188
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118188
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08b6e875c6b1b52c6e98f4a2e37124bf8c6a6ccb
commit r15-6752-g08b6e875c6b1b52c6e98f4a2e37124bf8c6a6ccb
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118391
Bug ID: 118391
Summary: ICE: in add_extra_args, at cp/pt.cc:13737
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118017
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fab96de044f1f023f52d43af866205d17d8895fb
commit r15-6751-gfab96de044f1f023f52d43af866205d17d8895fb
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118362
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e4120500e0cfc71956dc6569fe4ff00d2c20949
commit r15-6748-g8e4120500e0cfc71956dc6569fe4ff00d2c20949
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117866
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21571cdd8355f2162910d40f2f7d2dd4046f
commit r15-6747-g21571cdd8355f2162910d40f2f7d2dd4046f
Author: Martin Uecker
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> What I don't understand is why is m_size is -1 when m_base is nullptr.
> Shouldn't it be 0? or I am missing something obvious?
Oh never mind it is an invalid a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some debug info:
(gdb) up
#1 0x023bcdb0 in
rtl_ssa::restrict_movement_for_uses
(move_range=..., uses=..., ignore=...) at ../../gcc/rtl-ssa/movement.h:285
285 for (const use_info *use : uses)
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102594
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101603
Bug 101603 depends on bug 113108, which changed state.
Bug 113108 Summary: Internal compiler error when choosing overload pointer to
member function and default'ed operator=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117985
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dedaccb4a0dedb47facf7af3b044ac684e9b29ff
commit r14-11170-gdedaccb4a0dedb47facf7af3b044ac684e9b29ff
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115430
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21600f3a6f23390c25a73e1cbfcfc544b7133d53
commit r14-11169-g21600f3a6f23390c25a73e1cbfcfc544b7133d53
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102594
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df3ae94a5eb3090e59d5fd8d3ccc3d8231bac87f
commit r14-11167-gdf3ae94a5eb3090e59d5fd8d3ccc3d8231bac87f
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113108
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3fe6135b62f190921db6dcae7bc2f9582ca4e7c2
commit r14-11168-g3fe6135b62f190921db6dcae7bc2f9582ca4e7c2
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116369
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:078089a084f4fd20812b15cd1ec7bd4bcd5c9282
commit r14-11166-g078089a084f4fd20812b15cd1ec7bd4bcd5c9282
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115657
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:13242e5bb690da993941b7d942f7e55d461858cf
commit r14-11165-g13242e5bb690da993941b7d942f7e55d461858cf
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114854
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da983b32877c86e8fa28027a0e20931527bb437b
commit r14-11164-gda983b32877c86e8fa28027a0e20931527bb437b
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109859
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6dfe71f5a0e43e8c35460d09af16eff93756dfd
commit r14-11163-ge6dfe71f5a0e43e8c35460d09af16eff93756dfd
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116060
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6b54302df470bf09801ad6785d5713ef23dcb38
commit r15-6744-gc6b54302df470bf09801ad6785d5713ef23dcb38
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118390
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118390
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is still
pr118390.ii: In function ‘int main()’:
pr118390.ii:13604:67: error: too many initializers for ‘char [4]’
13604 | static constexpr auto std_to_char_array = std::to_array({
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118390
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> PR118124 / PR118214 ?
It might be the same as those two I didn't look at this point.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118390
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118390
Bug ID: 118390
Summary: #embed vs
std::to_array/std::initializer_list
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118387
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, for the second testcase, what happened is that when we synthetize the
defaulted operator <=>, we indeed construct that static cast as required in the
standard and figure out it is invalid, but we do so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118387
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 60085
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60085&action=edit
gcc15-pr118387.patch
Untested fix for the ICE.
Or:
--- gcc/cp/method.cc.jj2025-01-08 23:11:23.375456869 +0100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118360
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Zeroone*b could be expanded also as zeroone?b:0.
Though that's only half of the story and would
x = zeroone ? b : 0;
c ^= x;
instead of
if (zeroone & 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118388
--- Comment #2 from Simon Martin ---
We ICE in a gcc_assert (seen_error()), because we did a permerror but the error
was downgraded to a warning due to -fpermissive.
I have a patch that keeps track of such downgraded errors and takes them into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118387
--- Comment #3 from Yihe Li ---
Indeed, the second case should be ill-formed on declaration of <=>. I misread
the relevant clause in the standard and assumed that if the implicitly
generated body of <=> would be invalid, then the operator should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118362
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f31819a0ac7b000fa3a456e5b068242e954edac
commit r15-6742-g2f31819a0ac7b000fa3a456e5b068242e954edac
Author: Stefan Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118375
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> We get:
> ```
> :1:1: error: expected identifier or '(' before '/' token
> 1 | /#include
> | ^
> :1:2: error: stray '#' in program
> 1 | /#include
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116015
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118387
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117993
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117993
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
Fixed, thanks for the bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116952
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117925
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76d1061237b5cd57a274cd8bc8fe02a6f407baa9
commit r15-6739-g76d1061237b5cd57a274cd8bc8fe02a6f407baa9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116952
--- Comment #4 from Giel ---
Also taking `decltype()` to convert it to a type-param doesn't
help (Clang still accepts it):
```
template
concept A = F()();
template T>
constexpr auto fun(T) {}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||witbring at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116952
Giel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giel+gcc at mortis dot eu
--- Comment #3 from Gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118389
Bug ID: 118389
Summary: Compiler Bugs (Emit Incorrect Intel Binaries)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117925
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eeedc54cc81c4dfb472ecbd6f14cfbf2dd035474
commit r15-6738-geeedc54cc81c4dfb472ecbd6f14cfbf2dd035474
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27d620d67697157f2269f3add4cb830540ac5795
commit r15-6740-g27d620d67697157f2269f3add4cb830540ac5795
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118060
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca79349c050c27ff466735ba78d2e2bbce56ffdc
commit r15-6741-gca79349c050c27ff466735ba78d2e2bbce56ffdc
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117993
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57904dc27d5b27226912838cdd6b5272cec4d050
commit r15-6737-g57904dc27d5b27226912838cdd6b5272cec4d050
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117792
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40f0f6ab75a391906bed40cbdc098b0df3a91af7
commit r15-6736-g40f0f6ab75a391906bed40cbdc098b0df3a91af7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118376
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> > in backend costing we do anticipate the vector construction to happen
> > by loading from memory though, so we don't account for the extra
> > GPR->xmm move pen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
> in backend costing we do anticipate the vector construction to happen
> by loading from memory though, so we don't account for the extra
> GPR->xmm move penalty.
Yes, I saw something similar before and had
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo