https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108588
Bug ID: 108588
Summary: __is_constructible returns wrong value for invalid
(but non deleted) default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108589
Bug ID: 108589
Summary: ICE: RTL check: expected code 'reg', have 'subreg' in
rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1932 with -mtune=ampere1a
-fno-split-wide-types
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64619
Roman Žilka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roman.zilka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #39)
> I was wonering if we should not provide flag to turn all counts
> volatile. That way we will still have race conditions on their updates
> (and it would be che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108579
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108590
Bug ID: 108590
Summary: Wrong integer promotoion for consteval
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108492
ming mengli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
--- Comment #16 from James Addison ---
Does it make sense to update some of the other variable declarations (like
this[1] one) within optimized blocks to use self-initialization as part of this
bug, or should I create a separate bug for that? (o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108591
Bug ID: 108591
Summary: void{} does not error out in 12.1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Mark_B53 at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|- 1_short_consteval is not |- 1_short_consteval is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
Alvin Wong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alvinhochun at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592
Bug ID: 108592
Summary: In IF statements -Winteger-division is repeated 4
times
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8011fbba7baa46947341ca8069b5a327163a68d5
commit r13-5485-g8011fbba7baa46947341ca8069b5a327163a68d5
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108593
Bug ID: 108593
Summary: No inlining after function cloning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108450
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34563
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yuri at tsoft dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note noipa attribute has been added for a while now if you want not IPA based
optimizations for this function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108592
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-29
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108450
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e32a12c04c72f692a7bd119fd3e4e5b74392c9d
commit r13-5486-g2e32a12c04c72f692a7bd119fd3e4e5b74392c9d
Author: Mikael Morin
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107360
--- Comment #4 from Alexey Izbyshev ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #3)
> I think there there are cases were variably modified
> return types are allowed in ISO C:
>
> void f(int n, double (*(bar(void)))[n])
> {
> double (*p)[n]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107360
--- Comment #5 from Martin Uecker ---
Yes. After reconsidering this, this is not related to the other bugs mentioned
above. I think your first example needs to be invalid, because the derived
return type then depends on a variable inside the ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107820
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107820
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #1 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-30
Component|rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108306
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108306
>
> --- Comment #16 from Andrew Macleod ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #31)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> >
> > Now, in principle we should have applied store-motion and not only PRE which
> > would have avoided th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552
--- Comment #42 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #40)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #39)
> > I was wonering if we should not provide flag to turn all counts
> > volatile. That way we will still have rac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108594
Bug ID: 108594
Summary: GCC ignores deleted movement constructor is not used
on return
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108595
Bug ID: 108595
Summary: -fcall-saved-a1 with -O2 leads to incorrect RISC-V
code-gen around inline assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
43 matches
Mail list logo
