https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100304
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce this one.
Were you testing with a clean build, or did you have PR100303 fix applied?
On master, it stopped failing for me between r12-285 (BAD) a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97974
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58a92b789a77cdade1f41800efebf6e0686f9982
commit r12-298-g58a92b789a77cdade1f41800efebf6e0686f9982
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0fdff3cf33f72848d3f894272431a5d49fe6a16
commit r12-299-ga0fdff3cf33f72848d3f894272431a5d49fe6a16
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
Bug ID: 100338
Summary: [11 regression] Python error running test case after
r11-2720
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Some of these tests are sensitive to GDB and Python versions. Do they differ
between machines?
I'll take a look at this tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Bug ID: 100339
Summary: Bogus "should have been declared inside" error with
friend
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100339
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Bug ID: 100340
Summary: Bootstrap fails with Clang 12.0.5 (XCode 12.5)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
After update to macOS Big Sur 11.3 with XCode 12.5 and Apple Clang
clang-1205.0.22.9, bootstrap doesn't work any more:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82359
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b24d8acbfffe30f40e280f11f23adac81b1e7f0c
commit r12-302-gb24d8acbfffe30f40e280f11f23adac81b1e7f0c
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Thu A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
Bug ID: 100341
Summary: build fails of error: '__LIBGCC_DF_EPSILON__'
undeclared (first use in this function) for mingw-w64
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82359
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Bug ID: 100342
Summary: [10/11 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-dse
-fno-forward-propagate -mno-sse2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On a system where things fail (Ubuntu 20.04.1):
Python 2.7.18
GNU gdb (GDB) 11.0.50.20201107-git
On a working system (Ubuntu 18.04.5):
Python 2.7.17
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 8.1.1-0ubuntu1) 8.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
it looks we need to rebuild cross compiler before Canadian cross-compile
because the cross compiler itself might not provide the macros we need.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100341
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I just check, with --disable-bootstrap, gcc compiles to the end. Just the
checksums of the object files for bootstrap between stage 2 and 3 don't agree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > gcc304 is the Apple M1 machine. The GCC support there is highly
> > experimental and not in master -- please note that ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #2 from Daniel ---
As an extra Info: the other compilers I tested (e.g. clang) accept the code
example as is.
But after reading the cited pet of the standard It seems that GCC is right in
rejecting this and the other compilers have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't know if that rule applies here. If it did, this would be invalid too
(by [over.load]/2.1), but all compilers agree that this is OK:
struct Base {
int method() {}
};
struct Derived : Base {
us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100343
Bug ID: 100343
Summary: add -Wundefined-inline for inline function is used but
not defined
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100330
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Bug ID: 100344
Summary: compiler ICE internal compiler error: in build_call_a,
at cp/call.c:38
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
D:\hg\fast_io\.tmp\dragonboxtest>g++ -o a a.cc -Ofast -std=c++20 -s -flto
-march=native -Wall -Wextra
In file included from ../../include/fast_io_core_impl/codecvt/impl.h:7,
from ../../include/fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Actually standard seems to require it - at least to my understanding of wait()
description in in chapter 31.8.1: it explicitly states that waiting is
performed in a loop, and loop is exited only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Bug ID: 100345
Summary: gcc 11.1 build "make -n install" fails linking gcov
undefined reference to
std::__throw_bad_array_new_length()
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Testcase?
i can only provide preprocess file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50713&action=edit
Preprocess
sorry. the file was too large.
It looks like it is an issue related to constexpr evaluation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100346
Bug ID: 100346
Summary: [11 regression] printf tests fail after r11-6755
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #2 from Mark Hittinger ---
../gcc-11.1.0/configure \
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc1110 \
--disable-multilib \
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
x64 fedora using binutils-2.36 and gcc 10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
Bug ID: 100347
Summary: GCC 11 does not recognize skylake; translates
"march=native" to "x86_64"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #1 from Erik Schnetter ---
Forgot to add: When I explicitly use "-march=skylake", everything works as
expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100348
Bug ID: 100348
Summary: RISC-V extra pointer adjustments for memcpy() from
glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-03 00:00:00 |2021-4-29
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |bootstrap
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
You are going to have to provide the whole build log to figure out why this is
happening.
Are you using a network mounted drive? If so do they have the time syncronized
between them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100267
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> > After support v{,p}expand* thats w/o mask operands, codegen seems to be
> > optimal
> >
>
> I was wrong, without mask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #4 from W E Brown ---
I won't comment on any compiler's behavior, but do want to thank you for
reminding me of [namespace.udecl]/14:
"When a using-declarator brings declarations from a base class into a derived
class, member functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305
--- Comment #13 from Gilles Gouaillardet
---
Thanks Richard for the quick fix.
I am happy to confirm that the latest trunk passes the three reproducers
included in this ticket.
However, the latest gcc-11 branch only passes the mini reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #16 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> +2016-11-09 Segher Boessenkool
> +
> + * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Simplify
> + (xor (and (xor A B) C) B) to (ior (and A C) (and B ~C)) and
> + (xor (an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94136
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Confirmed.
Merci, Dominique. Would you actually advise to compile without bootstrap and
start using gcc, or wait until the reason for the bootstrap failu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
--- Comment #17 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If the constant limitation is removed, it could be combined successfully with
my new patch for PR94613.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/569255.html
And what do you mean"This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #5 from Daniel ---
As a sidenote, the original example is also compiling if test object is made
non-const, i.e. "const Derived test;" is replaced with "Derived test;"
If the argument in Comment 1 is true than the program would still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin
Host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0, 9.3.1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Does it work when you use STAGE1_CFLAGS="-O0" (I think clang defaults to
> optimizing?). To rule out compare-debug issues also try
> --without-build-config
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100345
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Why do you use -n? That might disrupt things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Target|
101 - 159 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
