https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103909
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103899
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This should fix the issue:
> apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386$ git diff i386.h
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, from a RM perspective I'm happy to go with judgement from the libstdc++
folks in whatever direction they want. (not sure if it makes sense or is
possible to throw in a non-default -D_LIBSTDCXX_FORCE_O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Btw. can we remove the last 3 remaining warnings for x86_64 and enabled
-Werror=format-diag (at least for bootstrap on x86_64):
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c:774:60: warning: unquoted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103014
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Summary|[11/12 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52123|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #1)
> Looks like the change causes the simpler conditional to be detected by the
> vectorizer as a masked operation, which in principle makes sense:
>
> note: vect_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> Created attachment 52127 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> This patch should fix the failure.
>
> @Martin: Can you please test this patch?
The patch fixes the test-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103895
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ce3bd7993bc8413197e07c4f54052e4ecaeccaa
commit r12-6220-g4ce3bd7993bc8413197e07c4f54052e4ecaeccaa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103816
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Note the access to 'g' makes it larger than half of the address space which
makes the program ill-formed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Either that isn't the correct g++ command, or something in the code you're
compiling uses "#pragma GCC diagnostic error ..." to enable the warning.
There is no way to get an *error* from a non-default war
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52120|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Please rerun that command with -c -o test_allheaders_allheaders.o replaced with
-E -dD -o test_allheaders_allheaders.ii
Then compress it and attach here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103914
Bug ID: 103914
Summary: -fcheck=do: Problems with omp parallel do construct
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4c2e62d60f47d47cdd94951e16b0de50495cdab
commit r12-6221-ga4c2e62d60f47d47cdd94951e16b0de50495cdab
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Regression now fixed though it would be nice to fix the FE too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 103903, which changed state.
Bug 103903 Summary: Loops handling r,g,b values are not vectorized to use power
of 2 vectors even if they can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103903
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Known to work|8.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39075
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> So an unaligned store but it should be still an aligned store.
Because of the ABI that is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11)
> Created attachment 52128 [details]
> Testcase for the testsuite
>
> @Martin: Can you please test attached testcase?
The test fails w/o the patch and works with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103853
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. this is https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3088
Currently the standard actually requires that x.merge(x) does x.clear() which
is obviously not what we want.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41486
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52448
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
r/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-6219-20220104202718-g0fc60c18335-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20220105 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103916
Bug ID: 103916
Summary: [meta-bug] -Os vs loop header copy
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94669
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Could this bug be marked as fixed, then ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103917
Bug ID: 103917
Summary: libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc:74: struct passed by
value ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103853
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Pavel, I'm going to use your original patch, or parts of it anyway (the
addition to the changelog is wrong, we do not patch the changelog by hand it's
auto-generated).
Are you willing and able to certify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103816
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1021b72bf6542f3c08e5404b65063216ee1b06f7
commit r12-6222-g1021b72bf6542f3c08e5404b65063216ee1b06f7
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-05
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103915
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103918
Bug ID: 103918
Summary: ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1422
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103915
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103915
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juki at gcc dot mail.kapsi.fi
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103917
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This happens because of:
/* Preserve a functions function context node. It will
later be needed to output debug info. */
if (tree fn = decl_function_context (de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103877
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cebe875f6f44b905a0d56a2007b5a638a33a893c
commit r12-6259-gcebe875f6f44b905a0d56a2007b5a638a33a893c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103848
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76a45931ab7c831e32cebf13a6317e5e142f8151
commit r12-6261-g76a45931ab7c831e32cebf13a6317e5e142f8151
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103877
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103835
--- Comment #4 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
Thank you for investigating this!
Like I said, it's better NOT to emit any warnings if some machinery in the
compiler is not perfect enough to recognize the danger correctly (as it used to
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103899
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Confirmed it does help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103853
--- Comment #5 from Pavel I. Kryukov ---
> Are you willing and able to certify the origin of the code under the terms of
> https://gcc.gnu.org/dco.html ?
Yes. Do I need to resubmit a signed-off patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373
Bug 101373 depends on bug 100409, which changed state.
Bug 100409 Summary: C++ FE elides pure throwing call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #90 from Martin Liška ---
Note that I can bootstrap with -O3 -march=native on bdver1 when I apply the fix
for PR103905.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103919
Bug ID: 103919
Summary: The basic_string(const T&, size_type, size_type)
constructor is overconstrained
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103853
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think I can probably just add the Signed-off-by: tag based on your comment
above, and push it. But it wouldn't hurt to attach a signed-off patch here.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103919
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, the one in gimple-ssa-warn-access.c looks trivial, the other two are mine,
and will probably need another exception.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103913
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
%, %, or % after actually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Sure, I can make that change!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 90925, which changed state.
Bug 90925 Summary: gcc allows calling private overridden operators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103758
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The diagnostic kinds in the call:
warning_at (loc, OPT_Wpragmas,
"missing [error|warning|ignored|push|pop|ignored_attributes]"
" after %<#pragma GCC diagnostic%>");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103879
--- Comment #7 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6)
> Reduced C++14 rejects-valid testcase:
>
> struct A {
> int n = 42;
> };
>
> struct B : A { };
>
> struct C {
> B b;
> };
>
> constexpr int f() {
> C c;
> A& a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103919
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6aa0859afaf28f4fb13121352225bc5877e02a44
commit r12-6267-g6aa0859afaf28f4fb13121352225bc5877e02a44
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103879
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, looks like it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103919
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk, but worth backporting to gcc-11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103919
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89074
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103920
Bug ID: 103920
Summary: No warning for large structs passed by value ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103921
Bug ID: 103921
Summary: [modules] ICE requires in explicit-specifier of
instantiation of imported template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89074
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least when not constant evaluating that, a + 2 can be equal to b + 0 or can
be different, shouldn't we reject at least that?
It is true that for automatic variables if at least one of the pointers is into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103921
--- Comment #1 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Simplified: https://godbolt.org/z/zzbjj7W3K.
mod.cpp:
```C++
export module mod;
export template struct quantity {
template
explicit(requires { 0; }) operator quantity() const;
};
```
tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85a3442c85aedb00c59e986f16cccbb8ec60d777
commit r12-6268-g85a3442c85aedb00c59e986f16cccbb8ec60d777
Author: Sandra Loosemore
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89074
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> At least when not constant evaluating that, a + 2 can be equal to b + 0 or
> can be different, shouldn't we reject at least that?
I think so, according to https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103920
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95879
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98096
James Y Knight changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foom at fuhm dot net
--- Comment #7 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5400112aa94163b1e94404e74b3000779d24303b
commit r10-10374-g5400112aa94163b1e94404e74b3000779d24303b
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:865ad53c49953f2950901aaf45b34a38841df019
commit r10-10375-g865ad53c49953f2950901aaf45b34a38841df019
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also fixed for 10.4 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103197
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 52131
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52131&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103921
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[modules] ICE requires in |[modules] ICE dependent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103914
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103197
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npiggin at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94669
--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> Could this bug be marked as fixed, then ?
Yes, but I don't really know the GCC rules about closing reports
any more, so someone else probably ought to handle it.
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
