https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id=8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107783
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107776
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
Bug ID: 107784
Summary: QOI: sizeof( bind_front( Member-Function ) ) too big
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] -flto|[12/13 Regression] -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107755
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
--- Comment #2 from Jörg Richter ---
I think it should only change the size of std::_Bind_front. This type should
not be used at any ABI relevant border. But even if it is, I should be
possible to just rename the type?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107749
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107785
Bug ID: 107785
Summary: Integer comparison result compile with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107786
Bug ID: 107786
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791
since r13-4151-gacbb5ef06ee978
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107786
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107781
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 107780 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107780
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107785
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect you have a signed integer overflow in this code. And in c/c++, signed
integer overflow is undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107785
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Unsigned integer types are defined to be wrapping types which is why it works
with that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87497
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107785
--- Comment #3 from Muggle Wei ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Unsigned integer types are defined to be wrapping types which is why it
> works with that.
Thanks for the reply, I had thought that integer overflow would only aff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60880f3afc82f55b834643e449883dd5b6ad057a
commit r11-10385-g60880f3afc82f55b834643e449883dd5b6ad057a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d92cbc49eac263e32ff5eaabffd3efe2324502d2
commit r11-10386-gd92cbc49eac263e32ff5eaabffd3efe2324502d2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec8ec09f9414be871e322fecf4ebf53e3687bd22
commit r13-4187-gec8ec09f9414be871e322fecf4ebf53e3687bd22
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107183
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10 Regression]
|-fco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6b1f6126de5e45777610699b6d634605c17711c
commit r12-8924-ga6b1f6126de5e45777610699b6d634605c17711c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:961f0e1966549b7ce7c1cbce6a4a91f7062816f0
commit r11-10387-g961f0e1966549b7ce7c1cbce6a4a91f7062816f0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107748
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, above commits do not fix the reported bug, I've just added identifier
uglification to what I found except _mm_cvtsbh_ss on the trunk, the same
including _mm_cvtsbh_ss on 12 branch (as there _mm_cvtsbh_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107747
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107647
--- Comment #19 from Tamar Christina ---
FWIW, the testsuite on AArch64 was clean after the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Li Shaohua from comment #14)
> Hello, is this patch going to be pushed to the trunk?
Not yet. The patch is under review process.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107746
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 107746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107718
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107786
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107778
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> Also why the function is not noexcept?
Writing to streams can throw.
If you don't like the default handler you can provide your own.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80548
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Indeed, compared to GCC 12.2.0, the trunk no longer warns on the simple
testcase I provided. However, I cannot see any change of the warnings on my
original file (to myself: tmd/binary32/hrcases.c), except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107778
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > Also why the function is not noexcept?
>
> Writing to streams can throw.
>
> If you don't like the default handler you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107778
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > Also why the function is not noexcept?
>
> Writing to streams can throw.
>
> If you don't like the default handler you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107778
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > > Also why the function is not noexcept?
> >
> > Writing to streams can throw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107715
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107690
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
|ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107678
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107787
Bug ID: 107787
Summary: -Werror=array-bounds=X does not work as expected
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107706
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107597
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107764
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We do have a FAQ, I wrote one:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#enum_switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107778
--- Comment #8 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > > Also why the function is not noexcept?
> >
> > Writing to streams can throw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107664
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107670
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107764
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It could be moved to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_cxx though, if we want
to link to it from diagnostics.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
@Marek: Any progress on this, please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107622
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #3 from Коренберг Марк ---
I forgot to add. gcc 12.2 - everything is OK. gcc 13 - with bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107627
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107781
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jörg Richter from comment #0)
> The resulting functor is too big to be stored inline in a std::function.
Why wouldn't you just store &Foo::func in the std::function instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107594
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107788
Bug ID: 107788
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at
tree.cc:1757
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Complete patch:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/functional
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/functional
@@ -995,9 +995,68 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
std::tuple<_BoundArgs...> _M_bound_args;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107789
Bug ID: 107789
Summary: [13 Regression] slp ICE on hdf5: internal compiler
error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107475
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107790
Bug ID: 107790
Summary: -fcontracts needs to add -lstdc++exp at the end of the
collect2 options
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: link-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107791
Bug ID: 107791
Summary: Spurious -Wunused warning for artificial variable
introduced for post contract
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107579
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107579
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE |[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107792
Bug ID: 107792
Summary: Output of default contract violation handler could be
improved
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107789
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107785
--- Comment #4 from Muggle Wei ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Unsigned integer types are defined to be wrapping types which is why it
> works with that.
Indeed! It was my fault, appreciate for your answer!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #17 from Yuri Gribov ---
Fix has been approved
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606858.html), I hope
to merge it soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107785
Muggle Wei changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107786
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c7d336b673df2f3bf23bc5e7a69c445a2320c04
commit r13-4201-g4c7d336b673df2f3bf23bc5e7a69c445a2320c04
Author: Philipp Tomsich
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107540
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107789
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107766
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107577
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107766
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Posting example from PR107789 here in unlikely case it's a slightly different
problem:
$ cat a.c.c
long ga, gb, gc, gd;
unsigned long ge, gf;
int gh;
int bug(void) {
gf = gb ? ga : 0;
gf -= gh * ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107574
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107575
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107788
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107788
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE in |[13 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107491
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kulik ---
Created attachment 53935
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53935&action=edit
Proposed patch with configurable minimal stack size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
--- Comment #6 from Jörg Richter ---
It's not that I'm intentionally using bind_front without further arguments. I
just stumbled across it when I was developing code that could output the target
of a std::function<>. As I've stumpelt upon it, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107475
Marc Poulhiès changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dkm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107491
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Kulik ---
So, I looked into it and with the patch attached above seems to work as
expected. Stack can be resized like this `GODEBUG=minstacksize=32 ./test`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107519
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107570
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE:|[13 Regression] ICE:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107714
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Bracey ---
The assembler's rejection of the vld2 is valid - the only permitted
post-indexed form is to use "!" for increment by 32 (the amount read).
Experimenting by changing "inStep" you can see the compiler backend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107493
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] Wrong code |[13 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107784
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It already has such a mode, and has done for many many years.
See --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/configure.html
Nobody bothers to use it, so main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107515
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Bracey ---
Yes, looking at them it seems clear those patches address what I'm seeing with
the `vmulq(x, 6)` issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107558
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107557
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88264
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This can't be done safely in libstdc++ because we can't call getenv safely. We
could be dlopened while another thread is calling setenv.
But if that could be solved, other useful tunables would be the file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107549
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107714
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Bracey ---
I had a look at the GCC source. The vld2/vst2/vld4/vst4 instructions in mve.md
have reused the "Um" constraint used for vld/vst in Neon, which permits
both "!" and register offset.
This needs to be tightened
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
