https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119387
--- Comment #13 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Or if it is var tracking or statement frontiers, you can try -O2 -g
> -fno-variable-tracking-assignments and/or -O2 -g -gno-statement-frontiers.
% tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119387
--- Comment #11 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10)
> Just a quick note for reporter's information: if you need just the symbols
> for stack traces, not full debug info for interactive debugging, -g1 of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119407
Bug ID: 119407
Summary: Missed optimization for identical branches
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119387
Bug ID: 119387
Summary: Regression in performance by a factor of 6 when
building with debugging symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118011
Bug ID: 118011
Summary: -fshort-enums reported as enabled by default
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
--- Comment #5 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
But will it be fixed for 13^W14^W15? :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111607
Bug ID: 111607
Summary: False positive -Wdangling-reference
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110127
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Thank you for feedback!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110127
Bug ID: 110127
Summary: -fimplicit-constexpr leads to extremely slow and
memory intensive compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 109666 ***
Ah thanks, and sorry for the dup. Searched for bagin_maybe_infinite_loop and
othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
Bug ID: 109785
Summary: ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88804
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
--- Comment #13 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
User99627, a few points:
* My test case does require lto to be present. There's nothing to be gained
from your statement that the bug doesn't require lto, there are test cases for
either case. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
--- Comment #9 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
I forgot to mention that my test case requires -flto to be present.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
--- Comment #1 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Oh and this appears to be a regression introduced in GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
Bug ID: 106212
Summary: Code becomes non-constexpr with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105823
Bug ID: 105823
Summary: -Wrestrict / -Wstringop-overflow / -Warray-bounds
warnings for uninitialized values
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105821
Bug ID: 105821
Summary: ICE for illegal constexpr-if
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #7 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Thanks for the outline! We'll turn off -Wmismatched-new-delete with GCC 11 and
try to switch to the selective opt-out with pragmas in 12. That's a good
workaround for now.
On a random related note,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #5 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> extern "C" void free (void *);
>
> class Base
> {
> public:
> Base();
>
> void * operator new(unsigned long, const int &);
> void operator delete(void * ptr, const int &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #3 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
* marking operator delete noinline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
But this isn't really a solution since I can't inline new without moving a lot
of code into the header, and marking `operator new` noinline isn't what I want
either. I read both articles prior to mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
Bug ID: 100485
Summary: False positive in -Wmismatched-new-delete
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99713
Bug ID: 99713
Summary: Add _GLIBCXX_CHECK_PREDICATES that violates runtime
guarantees and ensures predicates are valid
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99640
Bug ID: 99640
Summary: Internal compiler error: in lookup_template_class_1,
at cp/pt.c:9895
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99356
Bug ID: 99356
Summary: Recursive std::shared_future:s with
std::launch::deferred sporadically deadlock
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
Bug ID: 97949
Summary: Recursive calls of std::call_once together with cout
leads to deadlock under mingw64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
28 matches
Mail list logo
