https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107141
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107147
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107148
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107149
Bug ID: 107149
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE during RTL pass: dse2 - internal
compiler error: in require, at machmode.h:297
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107149
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107094
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107094
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Cross ref: The PR mentioned in comment 1 contains a patch suggestion
that fixes the issue of this PR:
PR 107088 comment 6 (the patch)
PR 107088 comment 9 (comment that it fixes the issue)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107150
Bug ID: 107150
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected function_type or
method_type, have lang_type in
deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, at cp/class.cc:5183
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107150
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107088
--- Comment #10 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #8)
> Looks good, but maybe:
>
> GET_MODE_SIZE (int_mode) > 1
>
> would be more general.
I very much like the idea of a size guard. Posted a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107151
Bug ID: 107151
Summary: Specializing a concepted template can emit bogus
assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106949
--- Comment #4 from Anton Fedorov ---
> You can't just add a stack segment without changing the stack pointer.
I can -- since we are on the initial stack at this point, no return into
__morestack will happen so no attempt to release it, thus th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107152
Bug ID: 107152
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in get_shorthand_constraints)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107153
Bug ID: 107153
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:645
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107153
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107148
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107139
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b74ab7a1609f01afaab9b82cfabfb96ae9e1145d
commit r13-3060-gb74ab7a1609f01afaab9b82cfabfb96ae9e1145d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7d8189882fc89f6f410fc9bcf0f8226787316f83
commit r13-3058-g7d8189882fc89f6f410fc9bcf0f8226787316f83
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107134
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7cdab65f3d770345903023f357b6ca96bc85a002
commit r13-3059-g7cdab65f3d770345903023f357b6ca96bc85a002
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107108
--- Comment #4 from bjchan9an at foxmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Can you try binutils 2.39?
Yes, this bug has been repaired in binutils 2.39.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107135
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104605
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, I put the wrong PR number on this commit:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7cdab65f3d770345903023f357b6ca96bc85a002
commit r13-3059-g7cdab65f3d770345903023f357b6ca96bc85a002
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103924
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
I encountered a similar problem when testing views::join_with:
#include
#include
constexpr std::string_view rs[] = {"42"};
static_assert(!std::ranges::empty(rs |
std::views::join_with(std::string("";
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60833
--- Comment #3 from David Blaikie ---
FWIW, bug on the GDB side seems to have been fixed (
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16841 ) - might be nice to fix
the GCC side too. (though, admittedly, I don't know that this extra debug in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106949
--- Comment #5 from Anton Fedorov ---
Hhhhmmm... Interesting, it doesn't seems to be possible, but it would be fun
way to fix to add cleanup(free) attribute to the variable if it has to be
malloc'ed...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107102
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
--- Comment #10 from Vadim Zeitlin ---
There definitely was a change in behaviour in gcc 11 because I had to make this
change
https://github.com/wxWidgets/wxWidgets/commit/95c98a0b5ff71caca6654327bf341719c6587766
to avoid getting warnings with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107136
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e87879a9f5c2869de177c4dde2172f277e81ef1a
commit r13-3065-ge87879a9f5c2869de177c4dde2172f277e81ef1a
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107136
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98886
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bjchan9an at foxmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107097
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107097
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The code is different though. C has that
case EQ_EXPR:
case NE_EXPR:
case LE_EXPR:
case GE_EXPR:
case LT_EXPR:
case GT_EXPR:
/* Excess precision for implicit conversions of int
hi,
I realized gcc does not use optimized const shifts well but instead does
replace some (3-7) left shifts on 32bit variables with add and adc
operations.
If the shift is not optimized and just unrolled they should be the same
cycle count but for some reason it also adds some mov operations in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107146
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tim at klingt dot org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77884
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107143
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-04
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107085
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Roy Jacobson from comment #3)
> Thanks! But a Base const& is still not detected:
>
> static_assert(__reference_constructs_from_temporary(Base const&, Derived));
>
> And in this case I think it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107074
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107085
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
...which could be fixed with
--- a/gcc/cp/call.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/call.cc
@@ -9186,7 +9186,9 @@ conv_is_prvalue (conversion *c)
{
if (c->kind == ck_rvalue)
return true;
- if (c->kind == ck_base && c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
Bug ID: 107154
Summary: GDB jumping to end of block when stepping over
construction of local variable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is with the Fedora packages but I see it with GCC trunk too.
$ rpm -q gcc gdb
gcc-12.2.1-2.fc36.x86_64
gdb-12.1-1.fc36.x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there is another bug about this one ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It started with r12-6329
c++: EH and partially constructed aggr temp [PR66139]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107155
Bug ID: 107155
Summary: ppc_intrinsics is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107155
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
And yes it was an Apple extension:
https://opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5026/more-hdrs/ppc_intrinsics.h.auto.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83256
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107154
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce3a1b5976079b1467473b4628f05797fd2eae08
commit r13-3072-gce3a1b5976079b1467473b4628f05797fd2eae08
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107072
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bfca9505f6fce631c2488f89aa156d56c7fae9ed
commit r13-3077-gbfca9505f6fce631c2488f89aa156d56c7fae9ed
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107072
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-05
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107085
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> where we bind 'b' to the Base subobject of a temporary Derived object, yes?
Yes, exactly right.
57 matches
Mail list logo
