https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96689
Bug ID: 96689
Summary: Segmentation fault when defaulting operator<=> on enum
er enum class
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
Bug ID: 96690
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in write_type since r10-6087
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96687
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is PR 77841
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96686
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77841
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96687
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77841
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77841
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The problem is probably that we're not doing the {"str_cst"} -> "str_cst"
unwrapping that reshape_init / cp_complete_array_type does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe related to or same as PR93028, but that one is missing a test, so hard to
say.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93028
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96690
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||itchka at compuserve dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b871301f09be7061904dc87880919d30e6afef8f
commit r11-2748-gb871301f09be7061904dc87880919d30e6afef8f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fc49a5777943aab11e227136d00a836f28f12b2
commit r10-8639-g7fc49a5777943aab11e227136d00a836f28f12b2
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96199
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9125cf8c33b710c378bfb3c7e67ec2f9f1c523c9
commit r11-2747-g9125cf8c33b710c378bfb3c7e67ec2f9f1c523c9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83445
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Karzhenkov ---
r269667 concerns initializing an object from prvalue.
Here we have `Target` being initialized from lvalue if type `Source`.
What we can consider as being initialized from prvalue is the argument of co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96355
Robert Douglas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rwdougla at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96688
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
int f(int x)
{
return ~(x + 123);
}
A very similar optimization can be done with this, by converting this to
`return ~123 - x;` (and the constant can be swapped out with pretty much any
other constant h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96691
Bug ID: 96691
Summary: Failure to optimize not+or+xor with constants to
and+xor with bitwise not-ed constants
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96691
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
int f(int x)
{
return (~x & 123) ^ 321;
}
A very similar transformation can be done with this code, transforming it to
`return (x & 123) ^ 314;` (according to LLVM), and a similar transformation
should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96692
Bug ID: 96692
Summary: Failure to optimize xor+or+xor to andnot+xor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96693
Bug ID: 96693
Summary: GCC produces incorrect code with -O2 for loops
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96694
Bug ID: 96694
Summary: Failure to optimize min/max pattern using two binary
nots to min/max pattern using one binary not
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Alemagna ---
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #6)
> This does introduce an ABI incompatibility.
>
> I'm seeing this with kuduraft-1.8 compiled with GCC 10, giving linker errors
> from clang 9.0.20190721 like:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96695
Bug ID: 96695
Summary: Failure to optimize combination of pointer comparison
to nullptr and another pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96695
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
PS: Very similar transformations can be done with alike patterns like `(x == 0)
&& (x <= y)`, which can be optimized to `x == 0`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96696
Bug ID: 96696
Summary: Failure to optimize div+mul to mod+sub
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96697
Bug ID: 96697
Summary: Failure to optimize mod+div to 0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96648
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:400abebf48a90d0797718ab7c3864de331e85b70
commit r11-2753-g400abebf48a90d0797718ab7c3864de331e85b70
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96651
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:623bc0276849d48ada5a7a2e3e94bd79de42c3db
commit r11-2754-g623bc0276849d48ada5a7a2e3e94bd79de42c3db
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96648
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96651
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96698
Bug ID: 96698
Summary: aarch64: ICE during GIMPLE pass:vect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96699
Bug ID: 96699
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in
fold_convert_const_int_from_real, at fold-const.c:2038
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96506
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43edad43b2cee17fb7575c40a9dafac3fe79ba1c
commit r10-8641-g43edad43b2cee17fb7575c40a9dafac3fe79ba1c
Author: Peter Bergner
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96506
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 49078
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49078&action=edit
Testcase 3
Finally, a testcase which is valid C. Note that cc1plus is still necessary to
trigger the ICE.
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96622
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
Ah, thanks for the pointer.
I thought I had used -O0 in the larger project as well, but I hadn't.
Just as a suggestion, would it make sense to apply the coverage at the source
code level (before any optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96700
Bug ID: 96700
Summary: undefined reference to `failure_on_line_796'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83445
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Karzhenkov ---
Also note that const-qualifier on `Source::operator Target()` affects the
conversion sequence (see https://godbolt.org/z/MexGW9). This seems inconsistent
here.
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
