https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105926
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85517
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119061
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Should.. ..the version for this be 16? That's when we expect to do an upstream
push.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119061
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119061
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117268
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Possibly. It makes fair amounts of sense that predefined macros are reapplied
after an options scope is exited. But it does break existing code. See
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-130381
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117268
Bug ID: 117268
Summary: [14 Regression] GCC target("general-regs-only") leaves
__AVX__ defined after a push_options/pop_options
'scope'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114663
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115601
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Created attachment 58499
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58499&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115601
Bug ID: 115601
Summary: ICE when compiling a function marked noipa/noinline
called in a contract predicate
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112312
Bug ID: 112312
Summary: GCC fails to optimize a C++ algorithm with a function
passed in as well as with a lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110851
Bug ID: 110851
Summary: [contracts] Inheriting multiple base functions with
clashing contracts is not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108099
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107525
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
And the papers that changed this are
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1091r3.html and
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1381r1.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Ville V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107049
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106567
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Since this is a 13 regression, we can close this, right? There's no backports
needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106423
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Tom Honermann from comment #3)
> I believe this issue can be resolved as fixed via commit
> 60468d6cd46a3bd3afe8ff856f82afcd4c65a217 for the gcc 13 release.
Yes, it's normal procedure that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106423
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106567
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Repro without std::vector:
template
void urgh()
{
const V x[] = {V(0), V(1), V(2), V(0)};
[&]() {
for (auto& v : x) {}
}();
}
void no_urgh()
{
using V = int;
const V x[]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106567
Bug ID: 106567
Summary: An array with a dependent type and initializer-deduced
bound is treated as an array of unknown bound when
captured in a lambda
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105926
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105926
Bug ID: 105926
Summary: Using a spaceship operator on an optional of a type
derived from optional causes infinite constraint
recursion
Product: gcc
Version: unkn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82470
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
We should close this, the fixes are in 11 and the related bugs have been closed
without backports. I'm happy to let JWakely do that closing, but I don't think
he'll disagree on it. :P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82470
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I think this was fixed by the fix for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71096
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62274
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99277
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Bug ID: 98646
Summary: A static_cast confuses -Wnonnull, causing false
positives
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Right - that's the Qt bug I'm hoping to fix, but I don't get far because of the
ICE. :) The libstdc++ headers have been reorganized, so Qt's expectations that
numeric_limits is available without includin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Also, you can just try the actual build, if you follow
https://wiki.qt.io/Building_Qt_6_from_Git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Still can't reproduce it.
> Please send me also output of --verbose.
Yeah, I fed that output to g++, and then it compiles just fine. But when it's
in the actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Created attachment 49946
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49946&action=edit
Output of --verbose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Created attachment 49943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49943&action=edit
Output of gcc -E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
..or maybe I'm just too dumb to invoke g++ -E properly, and the rest of the
options confuse the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97284
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98054
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98054
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/560591.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98054
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269
--- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Ha, well spotted. In general, in a spaceship world, you do want to provide
comparisons symmetrically and const-correctly, and that also works in the
pre-spaceship world, thus:
#include
struct X {
tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Oh, and if you define a spaceship operator for your type, then things work
again, with or without FLIP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96269
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97663
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Patch available:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556323.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95904
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
48 matches
Mail list logo
