https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107954
Jamaika changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukaszcz18 at wp dot pl
--- Comment #2 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #1)
> I notice that this is missing from the list of dependencies of PR37336, for
> which a wider fix will be submitted this afternoon.
>
> Best regards
>
> Paul
I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107955
Bug ID: 107955
Summary: ICE: trying to capture ‘ARGS#0’ in instantiation of
generic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100295
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||onebit74 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107955
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #54 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because it would be an ABI break. It's a good option if backwards compatibility
is not required, I've suggested it before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107078
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #19 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107956
Bug ID: 107956
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
contains_struct_check (tree.h:3641) with
-fsanitize=float-cast-overflow -ftree-slp-vectorize
-fexception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3912122c9dfaba6c8229e8f095885f69782ceda
commit r13-4477-gb3912122c9dfaba6c8229e8f095885f69782ceda
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107957
Bug ID: 107957
Summary: Missed optimization in access to upper-half of a
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
Bug ID: 107958
Summary: Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded
operator and explicit constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107959
Bug ID: 107959
Summary: Incorrect aggregate constant type causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note MSVC (with /std:c++latest) also rejects the source that is in comment #0
for the same reason as GCC:
(39): error C2593: 'operator =' is ambiguous
(25): note: could be 'PairPtr &PairPtr::operator =(cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Obvious workaround is to do:
p = PairPtr{ a, b };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107959
--- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley ---
Now fixed in git.
$ gm2 -fiso badipv4.mod
badipv4.mod:7:12: error: In procedure ‘ForeachIndiceInIndexDo’: expecting CHAR
datatype and not ‘127’ a ‘Modula-2 base Z’ in the 0th component of the ‘IPV4’
array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107959
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think GCC and MSVC are correct here:
[over.match.list]/16.3.1.7
. In copy-listinitialization, if an explicit constructor is chosen, the
initialization is ill-formed. [ Note: This differs from
other situati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually I think there is some disagreement if dcl.init.list/3.4 (that is
aggregate initialization) applies ...
Because if I make the two fields private, then gcc (and MSVC) accepts it ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102000
Hubert Tong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hstong at ca dot ibm.com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107899
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I think GCC and MSVC are correct here:
> [over.match.list]/16.3.1.7
> . In copy-listinitialization, if an explicit constructor is chosen, the
> initialization is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nruslan_devel at yahoo dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102247
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60027 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konstantin.vladimirov@gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107870
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=107678
laurent.alfonsi at linaro dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.alfonsi at l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107940
laurent.alfonsi at linaro dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||6.5.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107960
Bug ID: 107960
Summary: opt-gather.awk seems to ignore lines lines that start
with whitespace
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: document
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107961
Bug ID: 107961
Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] BFloat16 types are not
documented in "Half-Precision Floating Point"
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107961
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |BFloat16 types are not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
--- Comment #9 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
Interestingly, if I change the code a little bit and have a pair in the
constructor rather than two arguments, gcc seems to compile the code:
#include
#include
struct PairPtr {
PairPtr() {}
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39027
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
r0-92283-g839a3b8ab591c7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107962
Bug ID: 107962
Summary: GCC allows constexpr copy construction despite
uninitialized member
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79632
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958
--- Comment #10 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
The latter example seems to work well for both gcc and clang. The behavior is
also consistent for both explicit and implicit constructors.
Thank you for clarifying that it was not a bug!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miladfarca at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-12-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71383
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
If you marked the variable as used the branch comes back.
This definitely should be referenced too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Common-Variable-Attributes.html#index-used-variable-attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474
--- Comment #3 from Zopolis0 ---
If disabling the stdlib but not disabling bootstrapping causes bootstrapping to
break, the user should probably be notified of this before it breaks randomly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107963
Bug ID: 107963
Summary: Support
__attribute__((disable_sanitizer_instrumentation))
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107963
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-November/237787.html
If I read this correctly, there is no reason for a new attribute for gcc.
53 matches
Mail list logo