https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106434
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Josh Marshall from comment #2)
> How involved should I be on this?
You can ignore it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106434
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a compiler bug, not a library bug, and a reduced testcase will fail
before r12-5187 because it was already latent in the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106607
Bug ID: 106607
Summary: Regex integer overflow on large backreference value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106608
Bug ID: 106608
Summary: [12 Regression] std::optional requires unavailable
dtor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106594
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106608
--- Comment #1 from Egor Pugin ---
Update links.
===
We've tried to build Telegram Desktop with GCC 12 and got such error:
http://paste.mva.name/co36VoGr.txt
There is a struct A { vector b; }, where B is a declared, but not defined
struct:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106608
Egor Pugin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egor.pugin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21137
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106576
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106609
Bug ID: 106609
Summary: [SH] miscompilation of loop involving noreturn call
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106610
Bug ID: 106610
Summary: elements_view::iterator::iterator_category invokes the
operator*() && of the underlying iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106606
Johann Andreas Weber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johaweb at hotmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103035
Bug 103035 depends on bug 106605, which changed state.
Bug 106605 Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in range_on_path_entry, at
gimple-range-path.cc:164 with -march=skylake-avx512 -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106605
Wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106605
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106593
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vsevolod.livinskiy at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
Bug ID: 106611
Summary: std::is_nothrow_copy_constructible returns wrong
result
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The noexcept specifier is wrong, but is ignored. The implicitly defined copy
constructor is noexcept, so the trait gives the right answer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #2 from Nikolas Klauser ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The noexcept specifier is wrong, but is ignored. The implicitly defined copy
> constructor is noexcept, so the trait gives the right answer.
static_assert(!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #3 from Nikolas Klauser ---
I did some more digging and it looks like nobody can agree on what the right
result is.
This is the result of the question whether the listed operation on struct S {
noexcept(false) = default; } is noexc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106577
--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle ---
Patch proposed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599663.html
20 matches
Mail list logo
