https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
Note that 1<<31 is undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK thanks for confirming that.
N.B. this is why you're supposed to provide preprocessed source. The code you
showed to demonstrate the bug did *not* demonstrate it, because you were
actually using somethin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Drat, I think you're right.
So once again, deduced return types cause problems. But this also suggests to
me that the design of std::projected is a problem, because anywhere it might
get used has to be ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94899
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94900
Bug ID: 94900
Summary: filesystem recursive_directory_iterator incorrectly
skips entries in case directories can not be read
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94900
--- Comment #1 from Ton van den Heuvel ---
I found that specifying
`std::filesystem::directory_options::skip_permission_denied` does list all
entries for `recursive_directory_iterator`.
I no longer think this is a bug; the directory iterator sto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94900
Ton van den Heuvel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94901
Bug ID: 94901
Summary: [10 Regression] uses BADNAME _T
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94901
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94901
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94900
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #40 from Thomas Koenig ---
Yes, that test case works.
Thanks a lot for putting in all the effort!
Because we need -fsanitize=address to reliably detect this
bug, I have proposed
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/54
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #41 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb2c76c8b156c6d8541ddb3aa894568a2de3b02b
commit r9-8557-gcb2c76c8b156c6d8541ddb3aa894568a2de3b02b
Author: Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93956
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb2c76c8b156c6d8541ddb3aa894568a2de3b02b
commit r9-8557-gcb2c76c8b156c6d8541ddb3aa894568a2de3b02b
Author: Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93956
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b92bb10248a8f99cecf71a54c56bd4d8c75a322f
commit r8-10228-gb92bb10248a8f99cecf71a54c56bd4d8c75a322f
Author: Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #42 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b92bb10248a8f99cecf71a54c56bd4d8c75a322f
commit r8-10228-gb92bb10248a8f99cecf71a54c56bd4d8c75a322f
Author: Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94901
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:070b4df8a06539b661c134d436ea4207099fdcf0
commit r11-9-g070b4df8a06539b661c134d436ea4207099fdcf0
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94902
Bug ID: 94902
Summary: [10 Regression] internal compiler error:
output_operand: invalid use of register 'frame'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5f2fb1ff1742685a91dfdf78da871fd4d3292e5
commit r11-10-ga5f2fb1ff1742685a91dfdf78da871fd4d3292e5
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94903
Bug ID: 94903
Summary: internal compiler error: in assign_temp, at
function.c:982
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94901
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:187c854cc6284f546c151d6b6d4574d061e00d71
commit r11-11-g187c854cc6284f546c151d6b6d4574d061e00d71
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
--- Comment #35 from Lewis Hyatt ---
(In reply to Lewis Hyatt from comment #34)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #33)
> > This is a big enough feature that it should probably get an entry in
> > gcc-10/changes.html
>
> I emailed a sugge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
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=94901
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcf1d3883236c30147201cd712e6edbdc4fbc3ab
commit r10-8083-gbcf1d3883236c30147201cd712e6edbdc4fbc3ab
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks Ville. What I should have said...
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> My current theory is that it is not a bug.
...in the compiler proper. It'd be nice if the original test compiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94901
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
..and as expected, std::optional is broken the same way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> Thanks Ville. What I should have said...
>
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> > My current theory is that it is not a bug.
>
> ...in the compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47085|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94853
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #32 from Rainer Orth ---
*** Bug 94388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94388
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #33 from Rainer Orth ---
What's going to happen with the fix? It works for me on sparc-sun-solaris2.11
and obviously several other targets. This has been open for months now with a
known fix, and it seems we're going to release GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94904
Bug ID: 94904
Summary: [DR 1696] Temporary lifetime and non-static data
member initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on master (GCC 11) so far.
Clang's error is a bit more explicit about the problem:
error: function 'std::projected::operator*' is used but not
defined in this translation unit, and cannot be defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94904
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-01
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94905
Bug ID: 94905
Summary: Bogus warning -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94896
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94896
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
This is really a question of partial ordering; determining whether the partial
specialization is more specialized than the primary class template is
equivalent to this testcase:
template struct Id { typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94906
Bug ID: 94906
Summary: memory corruption in std::pmr::memory_buffer_resource
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89161
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|9.0 |10.0, 9.2.0
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcbf334afe091ad7d0f5ffe164299f8730cf41d1
commit r11-15-gbcbf334afe091ad7d0f5ffe164299f8730cf41d1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90479
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82d5decef38b5562d97c49a70ca2636a08769dbc
commit r11-17-g82d5decef38b5562d97c49a70ca2636a08769dbc
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90036
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning for the test in comment #3 has disappeared in GCC 10 (it's still
there in GCC 9). There are no printf calls with null arguments in the strlen
dump.
GCC 10 still issues a warning for the test in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2f32550a085984fbaaec962bf7723514ac71dff
commit r11-16-ga2f32550a085984fbaaec962bf7723514ac71dff
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 87719, which changed state.
Bug 87719 Summary: missing warning on printf %s and unterminated array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87719
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87719
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|9.0 |8.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87034
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-08-22 00:00:00 |2020-5-1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94907
Bug ID: 94907
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in check_return_expr)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-01
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94907
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
REG_EQ* is documented as only being allowed on insns that set only one
register. If you want to change that, you'll have to check *all* code
that consumes this, see if they rely on that fact or not, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94906
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Better would be:
size_t __size = (((size_t)1) << __ch->_M_size);
As long could be 32bits (windows)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
--- Comment #36 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
If the patch is in, it should be ok. Or ask in gcc-patches for someone to
commit on your behalf. Gerald is very helpful. Just make sure the subject
of the email is very clear.
On Fri, 1 May 2020, 16:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> REG_EQ* is documented as only being allowed on insns that set only one
> register. If you want to change that, you'll have to check *all* cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
--- Comment #9 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Defining Str like so works for the test case:
>
> struct Str {
> template Str(Cat c)
> {
> struct Flex { char c, a[]; } *p = (Flex*)get();
> c.add(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86851
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85175
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-04-03 00:00:00 |2020-5-1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83733
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-08 00:00:00 |2020-5-1
Known to fail|9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94908
Bug ID: 94908
Summary: Failure to optimally optimize certain shuffle patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 83278, which changed state.
Bug 83278 Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow for an inlined
__builtin___sprintf_chk with a local buffer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83278
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83278
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.3.0, 9.2.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71501
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||87719
Known to fail|9.0
(dot), deferred :: dot_
end type
contains
function dot(a, b)
class(foo) :: a, b
dot = a%dot_(b)
end function
end module
$ gfortran -c gfortran-20200501.f90
gfortran-20200501.f90:13:10:
13 | dot = a%dot_(b)
| 1
Error: Function ‘dot’ at (1) cannot be called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94892
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30da2906ac521749aef8260fc1d942e62073f19d
commit r11-20-g30da2906ac521749aef8260fc1d942e62073f19d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[10 Regression] Functional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f6c1ca287d2c64856ef67fa50bc462633d5b8cf
commit r11-21-g4f6c1ca287d2c64856ef67fa50bc462633d5b8cf
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910
Bug ID: 94910
Summary: detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than
clang's
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94911
Bug ID: 94911
Summary: Failure to optimize comparisons of VLA sizes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94908
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Even if we write __builtin_shuffle, the vector lowering pass turns it into the
same code (constructor of BIT_FIELD_REFs), which seems to indicate that the
target does not handle this pattern.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94911
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
gcc computes sizeof(a) as 4ul*(size_t)n, and unsigned types don't provide nice
overflow guarantees, so that complicates things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94911
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> gcc computes sizeof(a) as 4ul*(size_t)n, and unsigned types don't provide
> nice overflow guarantees, so that complicates things.
While the C++ front-end does:
(si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94911
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Since VLA is an extension for compatibility with C, it is strange that it
behaves differently (does one use the value of n at the time of the typedef and
the other at the time of the declaration?). This bug is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94905
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Several of us asked, and it was rejected. Your next step is to provide a
self-contained testcase (preprocessed sources?). You may also want to check if
it still warns in gcc-10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94912
Bug ID: 94912
Summary: Non-consistent behaviour of VLAs compared to C
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
Bug ID: 94913
Summary: Failure to optimize not+cmp into overflow check
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
The same thing happens for this code :
bool f(unsigned x, unsigned y)
{
return (x - y - 1) >= x;
}
LLVM outputs this :
f(unsigned int, unsigned int):
cmp esi, edi
setae al
ret
GCC outputs this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94914
Bug ID: 94914
Summary: Failure to optimize check of high part of 64-bit
result of 32 by 32 multiplication into overflow check
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94898
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Also, if this function is changed to return `int`, it can then be optimized to
a conditional move, which GCC fails to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6607bdd4c834f92fce924abdaea3405f62dc
commit r11-23-g6607bdd4c834f92fce924abdaea3405f62dc
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri May 1 21:03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #209 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #206)
> Does adding the linker option "-Wl,-O" help to reduce the size of cc1 and
> cc1plus?
Hi Dave,
Sorry for the delayed response. I have tried linker option "-Wl,
90 matches
Mail list logo
