https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103755
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95082
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f30f2d1dbb3228b8468b26239fe60c2974ce2ac
commit r12-7029-g3f30f2d1dbb3228b8468b26239fe60c2974ce2ac
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48bd780ee327c9ae6ffc0641e73cc1f4939fb204
commit r12-7030-g48bd780ee327c9ae6ffc0641e73cc1f4939fb204
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90524
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Summary|[10/11/12 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104329
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
The problem is related to
x = ['123']
generates the AST
ASSIGN z1:_F.DA0(FULL) (parens z1:x(FULL))
ASSIGN z1:x(FULL) z1:_F.DA0(FULL)
The following should fix it - at least it fixes the three exampl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-02-03 12:13 p.m., danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If I was to guess, I suspect the problem is with asm. Maybe a '\t'
> is needed before .symver on hppa. The hppa assembler wants wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
Bug ID: 104371
Summary: [x86] Failure to use optimize
pxor+pcmpeqb+pmovmskb+cmp 0x pattern to ptest
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #39 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #38)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #37)
> > As for ranger, range-ops will return UNDEFINED for the range if x is known
> > to be [0,0]. This can be pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e4252db0348a7274663a892c3a96d3ed7702aff
commit r12-7032-g4e4252db0348a7274663a892c3a96d3ed7702aff
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #4)
> originally ifcvt would only pass e.g.
>
> (unle (reg:SF 129 [ _29 ])
> (reg/v:SF 118 [ highScore ]))
>
> as condition to rs6000_emit_cmove via emit_conditiona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104372
Bug ID: 104372
Summary: [ARM] Unnecessary writes to stack when passing
aggregate in registers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104372
--- Comment #1 from David Palchak ---
Demo here:
https://godbolt.org/z/Tbh5YP61h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #10 from qingzhe huang ---
Here I have another test case. It involves an anonymous template argument which
confuses me for a lot at the time which clang is doing a great job to clarify
the reason for me.
https://www.godbolt.org/z/YG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104358
--- Comment #1 from qingzhe huang ---
Sorry about the long description and here is the short version to highlight the
core issue. Given this template function with a templated lambda as parameter:
template
using Lambda=decltype(+[](T){});
temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #1 from Óscar Fuentes ---
Also, the template functions atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all take a
const argument, when it should be non-const.
The `volatile' arg overload is missing too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c9f762ad02f398c27275688c3494332f69237f5
commit r12-7033-g3c9f762ad02f398c27275688c3494332f69237f5
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Óscar Fuentes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #2 from Óscar Fuentes ---
The breakage mentioned on my previous message was introduced by a wrong fix for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
With a recent checkout of gcc12 (20220203), on a x86_64-pc-linux-gnu host,
the following source gives bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 104119, which changed state.
Bug 104119 Summary: [12 Regression] unexpected -Wformat-overflow after strlen
in ILP32 since Ranger integration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #1)
> Also, the template functions atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all take a
> const argument, when it should be non-const.
>
> The `volatile' arg overload is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #4)
> The fix is wrong. It changes atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all instead
> of atomic<>::wait.
It changed both.
> So right now atomic<>::wait remains unfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104345
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #4 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #1)
> > Also, the template functions atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all take a
> > const argument, when it should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103872
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:599122fa690d55e5e14d74f4d514b2d8b6a98505
commit r12-7037-g599122fa690d55e5e14d74f4d514b2d8b6a98505
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #6 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #4)
> > The fix is wrong. It changes atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all instead
> > of atomic<>::wait.
>
> It cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104260
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a668ec0339c28b0725ded1e80d3276edb76b8b3
commit r12-7038-g5a668ec0339c28b0725ded1e80d3276edb76b8b3
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104260
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104374
Bug ID: 104374
Summary: attributes for signal safety and signal handling
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104361
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I looked at this paper for a different project a while ago, and it doesn't seem
like such a good match for C++ in general. While the basic idea looks simple
(use 2 counters, one for the thread that created the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104361
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91082
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang rejects it with:
:8:5: error: non-const lvalue reference to type 'void ()' cannot bind
to a temporary of type ''
static_cast(&a);
^
ICC rejects it with:
(8): error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104369
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ef328c293a336df0aead2d72c0c5ed9781a9861
commit r12-7040-g3ef328c293a336df0aead2d72c0c5ed9781a9861
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104369
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104375
Bug ID: 104375
Summary: [x86] Failure to recognize bzhi patter nwhen shr is
present
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:731f4bf14fc89a595abb780a969d03e82b807763
commit r11-9537-g731f4bf14fc89a595abb780a969d03e82b807763
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104368
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82e31c8973eb1a752c2ffd01005efe291d35cee3
commit r12-7041-g82e31c8973eb1a752c2ffd01005efe291d35cee3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104375
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Rodgers ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #4)
> > > The fix is wrong. It changes atomic_notify_one and atomic_no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 103933 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> except something very contrived that uses SFINAE of concepts
s/of/or/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #6)
> So IIUC you are applying modifications to libstdc++ that deviate from the
> published standard expecting that the committee will accept those changes.
> As a u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. [member.functions] in the standard says
"For a non-virtual member function described in the C++ standard library, an
implementation may declare a different set of member function signatures,
provid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palchak at google dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 104372, which changed state.
Bug 104372 Summary: [ARM] Unnecessary writes to stack when passing aggregate in
registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104372
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 99712, which changed state.
Bug 99712 Summary: Cannot elide aggregate parameter setup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99712
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #11 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101885
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)> The failed match attempt
> (parallel [
> (set (reg:QI 82 [ b_lsm_flag.26 ])
> (and:QI (reg:QI 143)
> (reg:QI 145)))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Bug ID: 104376
Summary: Failure to optimize clz equivalent to clz
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Óscar Fuentes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103197
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #11)
> Segher,
> Will you commit your patch in stage4? Several issues are supposed to be
> fixed by your patch. Thanks.
Yes, of course, but there have been comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The second issue can be seen with:
#include
uint32_t countLeadingZeros32(uint32_t x)
{
if (x == 0)
return 32;
return (__builtin_clz(x)) ;
}
This gets optimized for aarch64 at the rtl level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104377
Bug ID: 104377
Summary: Unreachable code in create_specialized_node of
ipa-prop.c?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104378
Bug ID: 104378
Summary: (N - x) ^ N should be optimized to x if x <= N
(unsigned) and N is a pow2 - 1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||104378
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #37 from Andrew Macleod ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #40)
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
> >
> > --- Comment #37 from Andrew Macl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
commit r12-7044-g551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
commit r12-7044-g551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 104092, which changed state.
Bug 104092 Summary: [12 Regression] Invalid -Wdangling-pointer warning after
writes by calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Thanks for having confirmed my findings and doubts -- seems I did correctly
understand a thing or two. ;-)
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> > .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12341
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
is this expected to be a new argument accepted by the `-Wshadow=` flag, or its
own separate flag entirely?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wdefault-bitfield-sign |add warning for bitfield
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
101 - 185 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
