https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Trebbien ---
https://wg21.link/lwg2158 looks relevant, particularly this part:
"This requirement is not sufficient if an implementation is free to select copy
constructor when !is_nothrow_move_constructible::value &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048
Bug ID: 84048
Summary: [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/tls/run-ld.c -O0
-pie -fPIE execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83982
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Trebbien ---
Created attachment 43247
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43247&action=edit
Patch for PR 83982 alone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83981
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Trebbien ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Also, if boost::optional had a noexcept move constructor it would work fine.
> This is a boost bug.
>
> The part of the patch addressing PR 83982 seems righ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
r256935 was okay.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84049
Bug ID: 84049
Summary: libgomp.c++/for-[56].C and libgomp.c/for-[56].c take a
long time to run
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #39 from Mike Lothian ---
I can confirm it fixes things for me too.
Is that the final patch in Comment 36? If so I'll try and get the Gentoo devs
to include it in the GCC ebuilds
Will this be added to GCC 8.1 and 7.4?
Thanks again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Bug ID: 84050
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing a struct array member
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
>> This kernel AT_PLATFORM name should strip the '+' off:
>> .platform = "power7+", -> "power7"
>
> We probably should have a -mcpu=power7+, we have power5+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
Bug ID: 84051
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds access via
an array pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84052
Bug ID: 84052
Summary: Using Randomizing structure layout plugin in linux
kernel compilation doesn't generate proper debuginfo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053
Bug ID: 84053
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing a struct array member
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83911
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
following results:
Running /ssd/src/gcc/git/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp ...
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes465
# of expected failures 18
/ssd/build/hppa-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc-git/gcc/xg++ version 8.0.1 20180125
(experimental) (GCC)
Can you please try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84054
Bug ID: 84054
Summary: seems -fno-bounds-checking no longer supported
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
Bug ID: 84055
Summary: warning: ignoring attributes on template argument
‘cl_uint {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wignored-attributes]
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
--- Comment #1 from Kip Warner ---
Created attachment 43249
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43249&action=edit
Pre-processed intermediate form of minimal.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
--- Comment #2 from Kip Warner ---
Created attachment 43250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43250&action=edit
Assembly listing of minimal.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84052
--- Comment #2 from pino ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Plugins issues like this should reported to the plugin author and not to gcc.
I don't know gcc internals, from my very limited understanding about gcc & that
plugin, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84056
Bug ID: 84056
Summary: map insertes a pair when check a value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84056
--- Comment #1 from Alper Ce ---
output:
a => 1
b => 2
Map after if condition(a new pair ['c':0] inserted in map!):
a => 1
b => 2
c => 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84057
Bug ID: 84057
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
can_remove_branch_p)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84056
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Where is the bug? Did you read the documentation for operator[]?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84057
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
301 - 330 of 330 matches
Mail list logo