https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120394
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120394
Bug ID: 120394
Summary: c++tools: configure doesn't honer
--disable-default-pie
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58203
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
The basic problem is the gimple IR has no reference to either memset or memcpy
in the case of zeroing aggregates or copying them. So the linker does think
memset/memcpy is needed. And then when gcc expands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58203
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jas...@chili-chips.com
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120393
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120393
Bug ID: 120393
Summary: Link-time optimization vs. Os/O2; baremetal memcpy
elimination
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120362
--- Comment #17 from Li Pan ---
FYI, the spec2017 619 ref size, with --thread > 1 can also trigger this issue,
but with another load.
10cf4: 0287f107vl1re64.v v2,(a5)
thread = 1 is OK, as above code appears at omp r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103459
pietro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pietro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
The original code:
```
typedef u16 TImage[][m_nBytesPerLine / sizeof (u16)];
```
Note this is a GCC extension even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Blocks|16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
>
> Note this is a GCC extension even.
For C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61491|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-22
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61491
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61491&action=edit
Reduced
ICEs at -O2+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100837
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120374
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can reproduced on the trunk with x86_64-linux-gnu and -m32 -Os.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can reproduce it with:
xgcc (GCC) 15.0.1 20250319 (experimental) [trunk 37680168360]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114064
Bug 114064 depends on bug 113328, which changed state.
Bug 113328 Summary: Some fixed length vector constants can be generated using
SVE index instruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113328
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113328
Pengxuan Zheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #4 from ad...@u-group13.org ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> Wait, you're reporting this for GCC 9.3.0? Anything under 12 is EOL.
Ah, apologies for the confusion. For some reason, Void's repos have an
up-to-date version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Wait, you're reporting this for GCC 9.3.0? Anything under 12 is EOL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #2 from ad...@u-group13.org ---
Created attachment 61490
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61490&action=edit
Preprocessed source for component
Forgot to attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(In reply to admin from comment #0)
> Command triggering issue (as invoked by make):
> [...]
Please run this with -save-temps appened, then upload camerabuffer.ii (or
.cpp.ii). This is the preprocessed source m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120392
Bug ID: 120392
Summary: GCC Segmentation Fault Cross Compiling C++ Source
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to nightstrike from comment #3)
> > I know it isn't a bug,
>
> You're missing the point. It *is* a bug if the diagnostic is bad. My point
> is that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120389
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120391
Bug ID: 120391
Summary: Enhancement: deduplicate constexpr char[] arrays with
identical or overlapping contents
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #5 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120090
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f725d6765373f7884a2ea23bc11409b15545958b
commit r16-809-gf725d6765373f7884a2ea23bc11409b15545958b
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There's also the source context which should be pretty clear what the assertion
was testing when it failed:
188 | static_assert(is_destructible<_Value_type>::value,
But I think the best solution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike ---
I know it isn't a bug, it's bad code that the compiler is correctly erroring
out on. My point is that the original error message was spot on perfect in
highlighting the issue being that the destructor was pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120387
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The instructions at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ are very explicit about including
that information.
15.1.1 is not a release, it's any snapshot between the date of the 15.1.0
release and now, so is not enoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120388
Bug ID: 120388
Summary: constraint on expected's comparison operator causes
infinite recursion, overload resolution fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120318
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Probably not very useful but here's a mechanically reduced testcase (fixed by
r16-504):
$ cat std.ii
module;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120357
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #0)
> either 1) I was missing private:,
"missing public:", obviously
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120390
Bug ID: 120390
Summary: Request to improve error with private destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120357
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119835
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2025-05-20 00:00:00 |2025-5-21
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120389
Bug ID: 120389
Summary: Assigning a CHAR to an INTEGER crashes the compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120368
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120368
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8459c546197dc9178d250994db021b36405f1bd6
commit r16-807-g8459c546197dc9178d250994db021b36405f1bd6
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed May 21 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120387
--- Comment #4 from Justen Di Ruscio ---
Pardon me for not seeing that this has been resolved. I'll also ensure to
expressly include the output of 'gcc -v', as opposed to mentioning the version,
even if the cause is provided. This is my first re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119256
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
James, I see you closed this as WONTFIX; was that just for the trailing "."
issue mentioned in comment #2, or for the whole idea? I thought you were keen
on having ranges rather than points.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120387
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 120388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120387
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Justen Di Ruscio from comment #0)
> The specific function causing the error is here
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/std/
> expected;h=5dc1dfbe5b8a954826
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119714
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||justend29 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120387
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120388
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120243
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
update:
It seems not simply the inlining of the actor into the ramp
but also when the result of that is then inlined into main()
If I apply DECL_DISREGARD_INLINE_LIMITS() to the actor - so that it is inlined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118694
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, that is helpful. Which pass is it that depends on the strict nesting of
"omp teams" within "omp target" for code generation? Is that also in omp-low
(where the nesting error is diagnosed)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120387
Bug ID: 120387
Summary: constraint on expected's comparison operator causes
infinite recursion, overload resolution fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120385
--- Comment #2 from Language Lawyer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Is this still valid?
> ```
> int main()
> {
> using IA = int[];
> using IP = int*;
> void(+IP{IA{ 1, 2, 3 }});
> }
> ```
Prolly, the wording is (was) a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120386
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It looks like I've rediscovered https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2439 which
summarized (and fixed) the requirements that imply how this needs to work.
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue241 and
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119329
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120386
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-21
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120386
Bug ID: 120386
Summary: std::unique_copy uses the output type for comparisons
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120385
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is this still valid?
```
int main()
{
using IA = int[];
using IP = int*;
void(+IP{IA{ 1, 2, 3 }});
}
```
Which makes this kinda of inconsistent after all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[Regression] GCC 14 |[14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120385
Bug ID: 120385
Summary: Incorrectly accepts array prvalues with certain
operators
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120377
--- Comment #3 from Cameron Angus ---
Just updated to version 16.0.0 20250518 which just came through, but still
seeing the same ICE (error routines re-entered). So will have to wait for the
next one, or if I can work out how maybe I'll try to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120382
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #6)
> I don't know what I am doing differently, or why I am seeing errors that
> you're not.
Instead of trying to duplicate my results, you could try just fixing th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120382
Kael Franco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaelfandrew at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120384
Bug ID: 120384
Summary: [12/13/14/15/16] _BinaryPredicateConcept checks in
std::unique_copy are wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119335
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120243
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
a slightly modified testcase (without the lambda, so the dumps are easier to
read)
#include
struct coro {
struct promise_type {
promise_type() = default;
std::suspend_never initial_sus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120381
--- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Nesting one definition of struct A inside another is never valid (and the
godbolt link shows the expected "nested redefinition" error that the PR doesn't
quote).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119336
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.3.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120382
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[14/15/16 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119324
--- Comment #6 from Robert Dubner ---
I compiled and installed cppcheck 2.17, which was a bit of an intelligence
test. The error messages were very chatty, but didn't actually tell me what I
needed to know. It took a while, but the internet ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120383
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120383
Bug ID: 120383
Summary: Improving early break unrolled sequences with Adv.
SIMD
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119221
Bug 119221 depends on bug 119256, which changed state.
Bug 119256 Summary: Capture source ranges for tokens in gcobol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119256
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120367
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
#include
int main()
{
struct X
{
X(int) { throw 1; } // Cannot successfully construct an X.
~X() { VERIFY(false); } // So should never need to destroy one.
};
try
{
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120382
Bug ID: 120382
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
extended_tree, at tree.h:6562
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119332
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119256
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120377
--- Comment #2 from Cameron Angus ---
(In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #1)
> Having preprocessed sources makes it a lot easier for me, and I understand
> that there's some concerns about making sure that bugzilla remains as a
> source o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119221
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120367
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Here's the fix:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
@@ -1969,7 +1969,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
_M_range_initialize_n(_Iterator _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119232
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120381
Bug ID: 120381
Summary: internal compiler error: in composite_type_internal,
at c/c-typeck.cc:848
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119231
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120380
Bug ID: 120380
Summary: internal compiler error: error reporting routines
re-entered
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119600
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120368
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120379
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[modules]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120378
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
> The ifcvt'ed code before vect is:
>
> _4 = *_3;
> x.0_12 = (unsigned int) _4;
> _38 = -x.0_12;
> _15 = (int) _38;
> _16 = _15 >> 31;
> _29 = x.0_12 > 255;
> _17 = _29 ? _16 : _4;
> _18 = (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118694
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
> Are we required to diagnose this as an error
> or is it allowable to permit this as an extension?
Answer "no" and "yes" - but the problem is that in general it does not work.
(Potential wrong code issues,
/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 16.0.0 20250521 (experimental) (GCC)
[509] %
[509] % gcctk -Os small.c; ./a.out
[510] %
[510] % gcctk -Os -fallow-store-data-races
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
