https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111261
Bug ID: 111261
Summary: No warning for out of order class initialisation when
using class initialisers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110197
--- Comment #11 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thank you Patrick! Great news! About 1/3 of my build's output is this warning
right now :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110197
--- Comment #8 from Matt Godbolt ---
Fantastic: thanks everyone!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110197
Bug ID: 110197
Summary: Empty constexpr object constructor erronously claims
out of range access
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68274
--- Comment #5 from Matt Godbolt ---
Amazing: thank you Andrew!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106020
--- Comment #13 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks Andrew!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106020
--- Comment #6 from Matt Godbolt ---
I'm afraid to say I've been unable to make a repro case in the short time I had
to try - will get back to this but about to go on vacation (!). That's to say
dumping the files from CE and using:
CXX=/opt/com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106020
--- Comment #5 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks! Understood re: cmake; I wouldn't have picked it but it was the easiest
way to repro something on compiler explorer for Howard at the time. I'm sure we
can get it down to a smaller cast and a shell scr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106020
--- Comment #2 from Matt Godbolt ---
There are many hundreds of similar errors in that example; perhaps this example
is more of a clue:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-12.1.0/include/c++/12.1.0/bits/move.h:205:11:
warning: writing 1 byte into a regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106020
--- Comment #1 from Matt Godbolt ---
Apologies for the unreduced issue, if I get a chance I'll try and shorten it,
but I hoped someone might recognise what the issue is from just this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106020
Bug ID: 106020
Summary: Spurious warnings about stringop overflows only with
LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #21 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks, I'd love to upgrade but in this instance I'm stuck on GCC 9.x until the
rest of my company can move to it. Nothing annoys me more than having to say
that, but ... at least we know what it is and that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #17 from Matt Godbolt ---
This is proprietary code (that the App and Sentry files didn't really contain
anything I was concerned about), and it links with a number of other libraries
which are much more proprietary (e.g. lwave env/li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #15 from Matt Godbolt ---
> Can you please try reproducing it locally with the 2 pre-processed file.
I'm not sure how to: if I don't have all the object files available in my link
line I get missing symbol errors before any lto1 inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #13 from Matt Godbolt ---
Both attached. When they're built they're built with:
```
/home/mgodbolt/dev/wave/cmake-build-release/env/bin/x86_64-conda_cos6-linux-gnu-g++
-DSPDLOG_FMT_EXTERNAL -Igenerated -I../src -I../src/wave/common/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #12 from Matt Godbolt ---
Created attachment 51361
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51361&action=edit
preprocessed. gzipped, Sentry.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #11 from Matt Godbolt ---
Created attachment 51360
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51360&action=edit
preprocessed, gzipped App.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #10 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks! Will attach!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #5 from Matt Godbolt ---
> And can you please test a more recent compiler (gcc-10 or gcc-11)?
Unfortunately not easily; we have a whole ecosystem of libraries we link in
(not attached here).
If we get any more time we'll try and up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #4 from Matt Godbolt ---
Interestingly, if we extract (with nm x) the files in the library, and glob
them in instead of naming the library file, everything works. We're having
difficulty constructing a reduced case, as we need a whol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
--- Comment #2 from Matt Godbolt ---
Hi Martin!
Thanks for the quick reply. We don't have an easy way to do this in our current
setup: those files are built and published as a library by a different system.
We'll give it a go though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102067
Bug ID: 102067
Summary: SEGFAULT in varpool_node::get_constructor during lto1
when optimising or not using debug symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
22 matches
Mail list logo
