https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551154.html for the
original testcase.
Note that solving univariate polynomial equations *in the integers* (the
rationals are not much hard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96407
Bug ID: 96407
Summary: LTO inlined functions don't inherit disabled warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
r11-2447 fails. Testing r11-2446.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d599ad27b9bcf5165f87710f1abc64bbabd06ae
commit r11-2481-g7d599ad27b9bcf5165f87710f1abc64bbabd06ae
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96408
Bug ID: 96408
Summary: C++20 new attribute [[no_unique_address]] occurs the
internal compile error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96408
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
Created attachment 48976
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48976&action=edit
the preprocessed file
gcc -v -save-temps -std=c++20 main.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96409
Bug ID: 96409
Summary: A lambda with a template parameter list inside the
template function using C++20 nested requirements
clauses occurs internal compiler error
Product: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96409
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
Created attachment 48978
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48978&action=edit
the source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96408
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
Created attachment 48979
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48979&action=edit
the source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96214
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
I saw this similar one too:-
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning-Options
-Wduplicated-cond
Warn about duplicated conditions in an if-else-if chain. For instance, warn for
the follo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96410
Bug ID: 96410
Summary: A lambda with a template parameter list using C++20
requires clauses is not usable in a constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96410
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
Equivalent example:
https://godbolt.org/z/chYW3c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96408
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
Live example:
https://godbolt.org/z/vMT5Md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96409
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
Equivalent example:
https://godbolt.org/z/n47Gfh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96407
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96411
Bug ID: 96411
Summary: erroneous "trait used in its own initializer" error
when using concepts in a requirement
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn ---
r11-2446 succeeds and r11-2447 fails, so the failure (at least on AIX) is the
var-tracking dataflow patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96412
Bug ID: 96412
Summary: format suggestion issue
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96140
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:891bd1f15280def813bf6a363495d44951e13e04
commit r10-8558-g891bd1f15280def813bf6a363495d44951e13e04
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96140
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6e2dc45099d5d23dfeae245617f316e95ac646b
commit r9-8776-ga6e2dc45099d5d23dfeae245617f316e95ac646b
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96337
--- Comment #13 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
I think, this inliner change needs to be reverted. People expect -O2 to produce
decently optimized binaries, and starting with gcc 10.x it doesn't deliver. -O3
traditionally enabled optimizations tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96140
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96337
--- Comment #14 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
Or change -Os to be gcc10 -O2 with less inlining, -revert O2 to gcc9 -02 and
implement -Oz to create agressive “-Os”.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96337
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I think, this inliner change needs to be reverted. People expect -O2 to
> produce
> decently optimized binaries, and starting with gcc 10.x it doesn't deliver.
> -O3
> traditionally enabled optimizations t
> I think, this inliner change needs to be reverted. People expect -O2 to
> produce
> decently optimized binaries, and starting with gcc 10.x it doesn't deliver.
> -O3
> traditionally enabled optimizations that may or may not improve performance
> (and historically, sometimes even break code), so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96407
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-01
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96413
Bug ID: 96413
Summary: Is single parameter specialisation useful besides
variadic template?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96414
Bug ID: 96414
Summary: Second char relation test incorrect with constexpr
dynamic allocation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96414
--- Comment #1 from Paul Keir ---
constexpr int lt_fun(const char& c1, const char& c2) {
return c1 < c2;
}
constexpr bool doit()
{
char *pc = new char;
const char* s = "a";
*pc = 'b';
lt_fun(*s, *pc); // a < b
*pc = 'a';
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96415
Bug ID: 96415
Summary: GCC produces incorrect code for loops with -O3 for
skylake-avx512 and icelake-server
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn ---
The symptom I see on AIX is that the labels for DWARF variable locations differ
between stage2 and stage3 for some files. The difference started with the
recent change to the var-tracking pass. Once the l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
Bug ID: 96416
Summary: address_of() is broken by static_assert in
pointer_traits
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
32 matches
Mail list logo
