https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94309
Bug ID: 94309
Summary: Fail to find post-increment operator in templated
function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94309
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94297
--- Comment #3 from Jens Seifert ---
Created attachment 48110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48110&action=edit
Pre-processed file created using -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94310
Bug ID: 94310
Summary: using constructor inheritance breaks the code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94311
Bug ID: 94311
Summary: LTO produces line info entries with invalid line
numbers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94297
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Still can't reproduce with mainline trunk/9/8.
Since I happen to work on DTS, I've also tried
devtoolset-8-gcc-8.2.1-3.el7.ppc64le and devtoolset-8-gcc-8.3.1-3.2.el7.ppc64le
but couldn't reproduce it either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94312
Bug ID: 94312
Summary: missing -Wreturn-local-addr on returning local address
via memchr
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94295
--- Comment #2 from Richard Smith ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> (In reply to Richard Smith from comment #0)
> > The C++ language rules do not permit optimization (eg, deletion) of direct
> > calls to 'operator new' and 'operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94297
--- Comment #5 from Jens Seifert ---
No options. Same failure with -O2. System is a RHEL 7.5.
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/rh/devtoolset-8/root/usr/libexec/gcc/ppc64le-redhat-linux/8/lto-wrapper
Target: ppc64le-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94312
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing -Wreturn-local-addr |missing -Wreturn-local-addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94295
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Smith from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Richard Smith from comment #0)
> > > The C++ language rules do not permit optimization (eg, deletion) o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94295
--- Comment #4 from Richard Smith ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> PR 23383 is where part of the discussion was done.
>
> In fact GCC implements the optimization without the builtin:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94288
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> thanks for the report. The reduced testcase at c#2 doesn't fire for me once
> pending updates are applied. However, the attached case preprocessed code
> does; I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94288
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> > thanks for the report. The reduced testcase at c#2 doesn't fire for me once
> > pending updates are applied. However,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94295
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Smith from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Richard Smith from comment #0)
> > > The C++ language rules do not permit optimization (eg, deletion) of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
Bug ID: 94313
Summary: stores into string literals sometimes silently
eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94295
--- Comment #6 from Richard Smith ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> Ah, since you are here, and you appeared as an author of N3664 but not N3537
> (precisely when this subtlety happened), could you explain why? It isn't
> discussed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
Bug ID: 94314
Summary: [10 Regression] Optimizing mismatched new/delete pairs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fddfd3ce555965864b6116cf541f6355d2057d3d
commit r10-7361-gfddfd3ce555965864b6116cf541f6355d2057d3d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94029
--- Comment #18 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm seeing the missing gcov file on nios2-linux-gnu as well. Git revision
6e00d8dcf32ace6588a1a4843dfcc0e8b9f9d00f.
I took another look at the testcase. I haven't used gcov for about a gazillio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94190
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75b7b7fdc4597170f24c069ea13aa3e14f37fde7
commit r10-7362-g75b7b7fdc4597170f24c069ea13aa3e14f37fde7
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94029
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Okay, forget my previous comment,
I overlooked that you say the .c.gcov is missing...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94315
Bug ID: 94315
Summary: [10 regression] new tests gdc.dg/pr93038.d and
gdc.dg/pr93038b.d in r10-7320 fail
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93935
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:768779dd1165edf49e148bca425321093c7dc15b
commit r9-8415-g768779dd1165edf49e148bca425321093c7dc15b
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93935
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94252
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94316
Bug ID: 94316
Summary: An error occurs when a globally defined array of
classes is initialized with values
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
