https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stevenxia990430 at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102112
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
commit r13-7761-gd6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102109
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
commit r13-7761-gd6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
commit r13-7761-gd6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99326
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
commit r13-7761-gd6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
Author: Paul Thomas
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102532
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
commit r13-7761-gd6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102190
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
commit r13-7761-gd6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
commit r13-7761-gd6997a5aab7aaa325946a6283bfee8ac2bd9f540
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70
Bug ID: 70
Summary: Malformed manifest does not allow to run gcc on
Windows XP (Accessing a corrupted shared library)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70
Costas Argyris changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #1
20230827001656-g7997f0d35ef-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-riscv64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20230827 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #2 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Costas Argyris from comment #1)
> Looks like '... @ Windows XP' is the Host, not the Target, in the PR.
> Target seems irrelevant here.
>
> LH, is this the issue you originally mentioned about my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72
Bug ID: 72
Summary: Dead code in std::get for variant?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I am using this:
program teste0es0en0
integer,parameter::p1 = kind(1e0), p2 = kind(1d0), &
p3 = selected_real_kind(precision(1.0_p2)+1), &
hp = selected_real_kind(precision(1.0_p3)+1), &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73
Bug ID: 73
Summary: G++ allows constinit functions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Benjamin Priour :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55f6a7d949abc708d1c6ebc01eb3053f96d1472b
commit r14-3503-g55f6a7d949abc708d1c6ebc01eb3053f96d1472b
Author: benjamin priour
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-27
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #2 from Jan Schultke ---
I think the problem is that GCC treats "constinit" exactly like "const" for the
purpose of diagnostics. In https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct#11, it is said that
const applied to functions is ignored.
GCC produ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-27
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74
Bug ID: 74
Summary: G++ allows re-declaring function parameters as
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janschultke at googlemail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110720
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110595
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #9)
> I am using this:
>
> program teste0es0en0
> integer,parameter::p1 = kind(1e0), p2 = kind(1d0), &
>p3 = selected_real_kind(precision(1.0_p2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99585
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75
Bug ID: 75
Summary: Initialization of a structure with a flexible array
member with c23 storage class specifier causes
corruption, and ICE
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109828
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Araknod at hotmail dot it
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #11 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
Jerry's test program is identical with mine.
Because E format is supposed to give no digits before the decimal point
except possibly a leading zero, E0.0 and E0.0E0 are both pointless, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #11)
I have the error check commented out during some of my checking on things. I
will revise the test case to test for the correct error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Take reduced from GCC's sources for lookup_attribute:
Note it shows up even not in a reduced version of lookup_attribute too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110891
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||patch
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #13 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
Hmmm. If I read anlauf correctly, our versions of ifort differ when
writing ES0.0E0 and EN0.0E0 with the value 666.0. Both give the same
correct numerical values but one version omits the E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:945217845db7edb499d66ac56480ce569002b83e
commit r14-3509-g945217845db7edb499d66ac56480ce569002b83e
Author: liuhongt
Date: Fri Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #14 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
To add to my email copied below, you may find a reference to the standards
helpful. k is the scale factor referred to in F2018 or F2023 13.7.2.3.3.
The last paragraph of that says that in Ew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111076
xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xuli1 at eswincomputin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76
Bug ID: 76
Summary: test summary
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83
Bug ID: 83
Summary: dsaf
Product: gcc
Version: og13 (devel/omp/gcc-13)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libbacktrace
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83
--- Comment #1 from Nitesh Tiwari ---
dsafdsaf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86
Bug ID: 86
Summary: food
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86
vivek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Chang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Confirmed. Reproduces with -O3 -march=armv8.3-a and
>
> unsigned char desta[8];
> void copya(unsigned char *src, int size)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < size; i++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209
Bug ID: 111209
Summary: GCC fails to understand adc pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110891
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110891
>
> --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment
49 matches
Mail list logo
