https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-07
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104417
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
My personal feeling is that if a compiler accepts `B b(i);` then it must accept
`C c(i);` as well because of [namespace.udecl] p13:
> Constructors that are named by a using-declaration are treated as thou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
But this is invalid code with a similar error message:
struct B {
B(int) {}
B(int&&) {}
};
struct C : B {
C(int a) : B{(int)a}{}
};
So the question is how is default constructor done, is it done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104424
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101515
--- Comment #5 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the root cause for this bug is:
1. there is no NAME for the pointer to member function type as the following:
(in cp/decl.cc)
tree
build_ptrmemfunc_type (tree type)
{
10655 finish_builti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104426
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe a dup of my PR 71962
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104426
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And PR 67762
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101515
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the following patch fixed this bug:
[opc@qinzhao-aarch64-ol8 latest_gcc]$ git diff
diff --git a/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.cc b/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.cc
index 4f9a090e520d..744ed0add5ba 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104426
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I think `using B::B;` is not the same as redefining each constructor with the
explicit call of base class constructor `C(int a) : B{(int)a}{}`.
Please consider this example proving it:
```
struct A {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104426
--- Comment #4 from Peter Dimov ---
FWIW, I agree with everything Martin Sebor says in PR71962.
-fallow-address-zero is an entirely separate feature, and shouldn't be implied
by -fsanitize=undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
Bug ID: 104434
Summary: Analyzer doesn't know about "pure" and "const"
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Seen on
https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/blob/c5f280a7f0e875d83833d895b2b8b0e341efabf4/lapack-netlib/LAPACKE/src/lapacke_cgbbrd_work.c
where the code has:
if( LAPACKE_lsame( vect, 'b' ) || LAPACKE_lsam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104435
Bug ID: 104435
Summary: Infinite recursion in
rust_demangle(mangled="_RYAvB2_l", options=259)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #40 from Andrew Cooper ---
I've given the GCC-11 branch a test and everything appears to be in order.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103872
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d2c0fad59745bf67aa6471e8c9e96c351f0de59
commit r12-7086-g9d2c0fad59745bf67aa6471e8c9e96c351f0de59
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104417
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c04ac0e15830b94a9f1e0715d92a4a2558dda03
commit r12-7087-g0c04ac0e15830b94a9f1e0715d92a4a2558dda03
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104417
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103872
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436
Bug ID: 104436
Summary: spurious -Wdangling-pointer assigning local address to
a class passed by value
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-07
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104437
Bug ID: 104437
Summary: Constructor of templated class with full instantiation
name rejected in -std=c++2a
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338
--- Comment #3 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Created attachment 52368
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52368&action=edit
Initial patch
Patch submitted to mailing list.
Subject: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Add support for inlining subword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104437
--- Comment #1 from Jan Engelhardt ---
Due to http://eel.is/c++draft/diff.cpp17.class#2 , it's probably going to be
(b).
However, adding inline, i.e.
inline S() {}
makes it compile again, so that case.. might be improperly rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84568
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=88798
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Wojciech Mula from comment #8)
> Thank you for the answer. Thus my question is: is it possible to delay
> conversion from kmasks into ints? I'm not a language lawyer, but I guess a
> `x binop y` ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104271
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
I think it's related to r12-2666 which caused load-to-store-forwarding stall
issue, and we're working on pr103734, try to improve ipa-inline.
w -param=inline-min-speedup=3, we observe both performance improve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++14+] Error inheriting |[C++17+] Error inheriting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104438
Bug ID: 104438
Summary: Combine optimization exposed after pro_and_epilogue
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104439
Bug ID: 104439
Summary: arm crc feature not enabled in assembly for function
with crc target attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104439
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like it was fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104439
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #2 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104059
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0103c2e4082c5a342a6834d31ea52bc7e5498016
commit r12-7089-g0103c2e4082c5a342a6834d31ea52bc7e5498016
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95126
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104439
--- Comment #3 from Eric Biggers ---
I ran a bisection and found that the following commit fixed this bug:
commit c1cdabe3aab817d95a8db00a8b5e9f6bcdea936f
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date: Thu Jul 29 11:00:31 2021 +0100
arm: reorde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104439
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101723
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebiggers3 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
