https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
Sergey Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
Bug ID: 107461
Summary: GCC rejects program with ambiguity error
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107462
Bug ID: 107462
Summary: Missed optimization of std::atomic::fetch_xxx "null
operations" to std::atomic::load()
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107456
--- Comment #2 from Marko Mäkelä ---
Sorry for the noise. I posted a variant of the program to
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/58685 and g++-12 is already
emitting the optimal code. Example:
#include
bool lock_add_sete(std::atomic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228
hicham at mouline dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hicham at mouline dot org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107463
Bug ID: 107463
Summary: Better error request for invalid initializer list of
aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #44 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
gccgo still does not work on Darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #44)
> gccgo still does not work on Darwin.
is work needed on the runtime, or on code-gen (or both)?
If there was someone who had some spare time to work on it...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #46 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
A small bit of work is needed on the codegen, to read and write the export
data. And some work is required on the runtime, to clean it up to support
Darwin. It has to be done by someone with access to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107464
Bug ID: 107464
Summary: Expression error in qualified name lookup with lambdas
in unevaluated context
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107464
--- Comment #1 from Роман Санду ---
Created attachment 53796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53796&action=edit
No bug with unqualified name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107464
--- Comment #2 from Роман Санду ---
Here's a link to godbolt with the minimal reproducing test case:
https://godbolt.org/z/5PoYd3sPs
Note that the bug is present in both gcc trunk and gcc 12.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107464
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
There are definitely issues with lamdba in decltype and aliases and this is
just one of many.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #47 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #46)
> A small bit of work is needed on the codegen, to read and write the export
> data. And some work is required on the runtime, to clean it up to support
> Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
Bug ID: 107465
Summary: Bogus warning: promoted bitwise complement of an
unsigned value is always nonzero
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107466
Bug ID: 107466
Summary: [12 Regression] invalid -Wnarrowing error
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107466
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Shorter testcase (still includes):
#include
void f() {
std::subtract_with_carry_engine();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107460
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
: In instantiation of 'Event::Event(EventCat, auto:1) [with auto:1 =
int]':
:38:32: required from here
:30:30: internal compiler error: tree check: expected enumeral_type,
have record_type in tsubst_copy,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris-gcc-bugzilla@cybermat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tamas+...@hudson-trading.co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doodspav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105560
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105560
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.1
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105560
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105560
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61596
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redbeard0531 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107466
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think this is a compiler bug. Converting that value to uint16_t is
narrowing.
The problem is that the standard requires subtract_with_carry_engine to use
linear_congruential_engine where each of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107124
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC also invokes the static assert but ICC accepts it.
Note I think clang/ICC get the following wrong too:
template
struct A {};
template
constexpr int f(A) { return 0; }
template
constexpr int f(T) { ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107124
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is one which GCC/clang agree and accepts but MSVC/ICC reject (even before
the static assert):
template
struct A {};
template
constexpr int f(A) { return 0; }
template
constexpr int f(T) { return 1; }
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107124
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
The latter example is indeed a bug in MSVC:
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/Cannot-find-template-function-with-expli/1672180
And here is the related discussion according the original issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
Bug ID: 107467
Summary: Miscompilation involing -Os , -flto and
-fno-strict-aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the unincluded version of the source:
#include
template
bool __attribute__((noinline))
compare_pairs(const std::pair &lhs, const std::pair &rhs) {
return lhs.first == rhs.first && lhs.second ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a single file example which just needs -Os -flto -fno-strict-aliasing:
template
struct pair
{
int first;
T second;
};
template
[[gnu::optimize("strict-aliasing")]]
bool __attribute__((noi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.1.0, 11.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53799
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53799&action=edit
Testcase compile with -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -flto
New self contained testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107460
--- Comment #4 from Chris MacGregor
---
@Andrew, how did you get the output in comment #2, with "tree check: expected
enumeral_type, have record_type in tsubst_copy" in it?
Also, should this be marked as directly a dup of 103081, rather than a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
Chris MacGregor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris-gcc-bugzilla@cybermat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107460
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Chris MacGregor from comment #4)
> @Andrew, how did you get the output in comment #2, with "tree check:
> expected enumeral_type, have record_type in tsubst_copy" in it?
When gcc is configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 107460 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
--- Comment #9 from Chris MacGregor
---
With the testcase I just attached, using 13.0.0 20221030 via Godbolt:
https://godbolt.org/z/8Y4cr6MxY
: In instantiation of 'Event::Event(EventCat, auto:1) [with auto:1 =
int]':
:38:32: req
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107261
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6913cad2a38bc406b137b06d579b650f6fe9a2e6
commit r13-3565-g6913cad2a38bc406b137b06d579b650f6fe9a2e6
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.3.0, 12.1.0, 6.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107261
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have not tested this at all but I suspect this patch will fix the issue:
apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/c-family$ git diff c-warn.cc
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I have not tested this at all but I suspect this patch will fix the issue:
Oh I don't have time to submit this patch either. But maybe someone else could
do it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #32 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Marko Mäkelä from comment #31)
> Much of this seems to work in GCC 12.2.0 as well as in clang++-15. For clang
> there is a related ticket https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/37322
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107451
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to bartoldeman from comment #3)
> Created attachment 53786 [details]
> Corrected test case
>
> In my eagerness to make it as short as possible I made it too short indeed!
35 [local count: 105119
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95187, which changed state.
Bug 95187 Summary: Failure to optimize bool check into consecutive literals
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95187
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107412
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> Make sure we only use "plain" accesses on machines that allow all unaligned
> accesses? p8 and later I think. The load-with-length insns are even later,
> but
63 matches
Mail list logo
