https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109784
Bug ID: 109784
Summary: Arrays of type std::vector do not compile correctly
when their size increases
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108809
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It's definitely "odd" API, are you sure it's only used from CCP? It was
present forever ...
The fix looks good to me of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109784
--- Comment #2 from Season <1342367762 at qq dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> FSF GCC does not have the patches in it to support aarch64 darwin yet. so
> please file this bug with Homebrew:
> https://github.com/Homebrew/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109670
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Seems good with g:18547874ee205d83 dated 20220515 and bad with
g:73f7109ffb159302,
dated yesterday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109770
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108589
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109069
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e24077cbe72d9335a2b23a3e4023cfd4707bd97
commit r13-7308-g5e24077cbe72d9335a2b23a3e4023cfd4707bd97
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108758
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bc2cf17eb9e79e69498f721cb42c59c3eda69fc
commit r13-7309-g6bc2cf17eb9e79e69498f721cb42c59c3eda69fc
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109069
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108758
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109770
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> > #include
> >
> > struct Base
> > {
> > virtual ~Base() {}
> > };
> > struct A : Base
> > {
> > virtual ~A() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108140
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109770
--- Comment #8 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
>
> Ah, interesting. I was looking for an answer whether
>
> new T
>
> may produce anything other than an object with dynamic type T or if there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Seems good at date 20221106, so the date range is [20221106..20230417].
Trying 20230205.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Broken at 20230205, so range is now [20221106.. 20230205].
Trying snapshot 20221218
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8302d2a4669984c7c287d12ef5b37cde6699c80
commit r14-602-ga8302d2a4669984c7c287d12ef5b37cde6699c80
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107888
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55026&action=edit
Patch which adds what I Mentioned
I still need to add the testcases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2cf2dc988eb93551fa1c01d3f8d73ef21f39dc5
commit r14-603-gc2cf2dc988eb93551fa1c01d3f8d73ef21f39dc5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107888
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55027&action=edit
testcases
max is optimized with this, max1 was already handled.
min was already handled, min1 is optimized wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108950
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4cbcb9e45c6d45cdbc15583e1a418c13150d8c7
commit r11-10752-gd4cbcb9e45c6d45cdbc15583e1a418c13150d8c7
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108950
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #18 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #16)
>
> AFAIR the main blocker to progress was trying to decide how to represent the
> target/language/language version dependencies of the features and extensions
> (th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> Broken at 20230205, so range is now [20221106.. 20230205].
>
> Trying snapshot 20221218
That was good, so range is 20221218..20230108.
Trying snapshot 202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97f404d53e0f47013afd728e617d03ecc585c6b7
commit r13-7310-g97f404d53e0f47013afd728e617d03ecc585c6b7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5fd2537b36d7ad32e9cb64ddf196105172f919f5
commit r13-7311-g5fd2537b36d7ad32e9cb64ddf196105172f919f5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2835feb9c29de9167c7af19209065357899b808d
commit r12-9523-g2835feb9c29de9167c7af19209065357899b808d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7408a0b93e6f6b3ce9b6be17bb9b5d2307f5ecf1
commit r12-9524-g7408a0b93e6f6b3ce9b6be17bb9b5d2307f5ecf1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #18)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #16)
> >
> > AFAIR the main blocker to progress was trying to decide how to represent the
> > target/language/language versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:817d1496e17806bdefab1e0fb06abdf56df58cbd
commit r11-10753-g817d1496e17806bdefab1e0fb06abdf56df58cbd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5aa649c98dcf58240299029f7dce02ee29ba6296
commit r11-10754-g5aa649c98dcf58240299029f7dce02ee29ba6296
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109747
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
void foo(int *a, int b, int c)
{
a[0] = b;
a[1] = c;
a[2] = b;
a[3] = c;
a[4] = c;
a[5] = b;
a[6] = c;
a[7] = b;
}
for a simpler testcase. We get
node 0x583ae48 1 times vec_construct cost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase in comment#2 still reproduces on the GCC 11 branch but no longer
with GCC 12+ (on x86_64-linux, -O2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f06a5c09287ad4606872403c6f8b01d1fe2f5540
commit r10-11398-gf06a5c09287ad4606872403c6f8b01d1fe2f5540
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d68d989286340c20bc0f713addf44dc0f0d77ac3
commit r10-11399-gd68d989286340c20bc0f713addf44dc0f0d77ac3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
As far as the snapshots go, 20221218..20221225 seems to be the range.
In git, this is g:fd69977febf399d1992bbf8d66ae9170e0a4dc9f ..
g:febb58d28bfa4b544ec7ffec2d61f46d25205ff0, which is 123 commits.
Tryin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
Bug ID: 109785
Summary: ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
although, I guess, we could have one table and somehow include the target in
predicates if appropriate...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109786
Bug ID: 109786
Summary: basic_string.h: runtime error: execution reached an
unreachable program point
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109786
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109703
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu.ojxq8 at dralias dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109666
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment #13 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 109666 ***
Ah thanks, and sorry for the dup. Searched for bagin_maybe_infinite_loop and
othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99987
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109668
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Started with zen tuning revision r13-4839-geef81eefcdc2a5.
The issue is also reproducible with -march=haswell or -march=skylake, so you
can use those for fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
An update on the int_range_max memory bloat work.
As Andrew mentioned, having int_range<25> solves the problem, but is just
kicking the can down the road. I ran some stats on what we actually need on a
b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > Started with zen tuning revision r13-4839-geef81eefcdc2a5.
>
> The issue is also reproducible with -march=ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #21 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
>
> heh, despite that I've not done anything to it since 2019 actually it builds
> and the tests pass - at least for C. Anyway, see what you think and how it
> line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787
Bug ID: 109787
Summary: Warn about contract violations that can be detected at
compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788
Bug ID: 109788
Summary: [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error:
shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long
unsigned int
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109661
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Could you post the backport here (or chuck it on the 13 branch) so we could
pull it in for gentoo? thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] |[14 Regression]
|gcc/h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez ---
FYI. I originally tried new/delete for allocation, which was a tad slower than
ggc_alloc / ggc_free. Not too much, but measurable.
Another idea would be to have a global obstack which auto_int_range<> u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109789
Bug ID: 109789
Summary: analyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109789
--- Comment #1 from alex at zrythm dot org ---
Created attachment 55029
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55029&action=edit
preprocessed .i file (gzipped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109160
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56da68414b5b5f0124cac29756c88710e5752762
commit r12-9525-g56da68414b5b5f0124cac29756c88710e5752762
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109160
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |fortran
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 109160, which changed state.
Bug 109160 Summary: [Valid code] Constraint on deduced NTTP from method call
causes ICE/Segfault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109160
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #24)
> FYI. I originally tried new/delete for allocation, which was a tad slower
> than ggc_alloc / ggc_free. Not too much, but measurable.
>
> Another idea woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
new/delete rather than auto_vec member inside of the type using new/delete?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the IPA side I'd go with at least
2023-05-09 Jakub Jelinek
PR fortran/109788
* ipa-prop.cc (ipa_get_callee_param_type): Don't return TREE_VALUE (t)
if t is void_list_node.
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #24 from David Binderman ---
Attached C code does this:
$ for i in ../results.202302??/bin/gcc; do echo $i; $i -w -O2 -march=znver1
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero bug918.c; ./a.out; done
../results.20230205/bin/gcc
checksum = 82D25348
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #25 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 55030
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55030&action=edit
C source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109774
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-09
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 May 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
>
> --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> new/delete rather than auto_vec member in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Nested class destructor's |[10/11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2499540e9abb55079b5f7b7ccdac97fbc63d9ab4
commit r14-619-g2499540e9abb55079b5f7b7ccdac97fbc63d9ab4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7bd9a34e9fce0fc307ec26d6db071fe0bc02cd37
commit r13-7312-g7bd9a34e9fce0fc307ec26d6db071fe0bc02cd37
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #28 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 55031
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55031&action=edit
WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<>
Here's my WIP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 55031
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55031
WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<>
What I meant is that by using a auto_vec could avoid reimplementing larger
chunks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Monakov ---
Eh, that commit sneakily changed avx2 tuning without explaining that in the
Changelog. Anyway, it should possible to "workaround" that by compiling with
-O2 -mavx2 -mtune=skylake-avx512
instead, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|csmith: runtime crash with |[12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Comment on attachment 55031 [details]
> WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<>
>
> What I meant is that by using a auto_vec could avoid reimplementing larger
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, you don't need to use {,vec_}{safe,quick}_push etc. all the time, just
have auto_vec in there and use .address () on it to give you pointer to the
elements and then .length () / .allocated () and .res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #24 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #23)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #21)
> > > (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> > > > https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790
Bug ID: 109790
Summary: internal compiler error in write_member_name, at
cp/mangle.cc:2992
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790
--- Comment #1 from Eric Niebler ---
Possible dupe of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100632
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109791
Bug ID: 109791
Summary: -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O3 and
_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109779
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:434dade5a11f63533cbf6059a862856c9b11c711
commit r14-620-g434dade5a11f63533cbf6059a862856c9b11c711
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109779
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109791
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The exact command line for a generic x86_64-linux-gnu compiler:
-O2 -fvect-cost-model=dynamic -Wstringop-overflow -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0
-march=x86-64-v2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792
Bug ID: 109792
Summary: RFE: Warn about misuse of "pure" attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
