https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113340
Bug ID: 113340
Summary: ICE when an explicit object parameter is attempted to
be used in a destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113340
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #26 from waffl3x ---
(In reply to corentinjabot from comment #25)
> Hey folks.
> Congrats on landing support for deducing this in GCC.
Thanks!
> While there is no spec for it, after discussion here,
> https://github.com/itanium-cxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113339
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I looked into the wrong part of fold, but anyways PR 23669 added the folding
to fold instead (and I just noticed I implemented it originally).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113340
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I suppose the following would be one way to fix it:
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
@@ -312,6 +312,12 @@ maybe_retrofit_in_chrg (tree fn)
basetype = TREE_TYPE (TREE_VALUE (arg_types));
arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113308
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #27 from Gašper Ažman ---
I think there is an example in the standard that distinguishes those two as
far as overload resolution is concerned.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 21:08 waffl3x at protonmail dot com <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It doesn't help that the mangling issue doesn't have implementation in form of
a mangling ABI patch, that would help to figure out e.g. whether it either H or
CV-qualifiers ref-qualifiers.
Anyway, I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113191
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61b493f17e6fea5a0fb45b6a050259ca326c13a7
commit r14-7157-g61b493f17e6fea5a0fb45b6a050259ca326c13a7
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
Bug ID: 113341
Summary: Using GCC as the bootstrap compiler breaks LLVM on
32-bit PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We need a reduced testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This could still be a bug in LLVM too.
>
> Without much more information, it is hard to decide.
I fully agree. I filed this bug report to broaden t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should mention that LLVM has/had known issues with -flifetime-dse so it might
be useful also to show how stage1 of LLVM/clang was being built.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113124
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #3)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> > We need a reduced testcase.
>
> Any suggestion on how to proceed here?
Nothing in particu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
The backtrace in the llvm bug report is not very useful either.
Maybe look into that first to see if it is obvious which function might be
compiling "incorrectly". Maybe there is a bug in the new clang code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
`-fno-lifetime-dse` is already used but I get the feeling there might be strict
aliasing issues in the code though. What happens if you add
-fno-strict-aliasing ?
This code gives me strict aliasing violati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113313
--- Comment #6 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
I know nothing about either applying gfortran patches or MatterMost but
I'm willing to try.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:18:36 +
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #8 from Jessica Clarke ---
The clang/ subdirectory should be building itself with -fno-strict-aliasing on
GCC already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110512
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642732.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113320
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642741.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105505
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113342
Bug ID: 113342
Summary: Template parameter does not shadow member enum value.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113342
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note MSVC has the same behavior as GCC here:
```
(13): error C2244: 'Job::create': unable to match function definition
to an existing declaration
(13): note: see declaration of 'Job::create'
(13): note: defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113342
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note there was a change between `clang 10` and `clang 11` which changed clang
into accepting the code. So I am 99% sure it is that paper which caused the
change ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26a9e8cee4d20e5b08c0336439c8f69a2f06af1c
commit r12-10090-g26a9e8cee4d20e5b08c0336439c8f69a2f06af1c
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 113200, which changed state.
Bug 113200 Summary: std::char_traits::move is not constexpr when the
argument is a string literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113200
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110065
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113343
Bug ID: 113343
Summary: Float values are not correct when cross-compiling
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113344
Bug ID: 113344
Summary: [14 regression] gcc.dg/pr15784-1.c fails after
r14-7139-g897b95a12b7fe5
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113258
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk only so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #29 from waffl3x ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2789.html
My alteration to CWG2789 came up on reddit and I realized I should
probably post about it here.
Instead of:
"if both are non-static member functions, they have th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113344
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed, it fails everywhere too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113344
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2024-January/078983.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-12
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113312
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
Here is a branch for __attribute__((no_callee_saved_registers)):
https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/commits/users/hjl/pr113312/master
Calling a function with __attribute__((no_callee_saved_registers))
doesn't wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113312
--- Comment #15 from H. Peter Anvin ---
That should be fine for this use case, obviously.
I should add the following: the reason the assembly stub isn't a problem for
FRED whereas it is a bit of a nuisance for IDT-style delivery is that with
FR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113338
--- Comment #2 from Brad Richardson ---
The addition of CFI_cdesc_t in 2018 means it is possible to pass
non-interoperable types to C so long as it doesn't need to know anything about
its type (i.e. doesn't try to modify or copy it). And yes, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113345
Bug ID: 113345
Summary: miss optimization for psign{b,w,d}.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113345
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> maybe we can just refactor the pattern as blow, then combine can generate
> the pattern for us.
>
> 22115(define_insn "_psign3"
> 22116 [(set (match_operand:VI124_AVX2 0 "register_operand" "=x,x")
> 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113039
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75ed46558a2e085ba12641a47112e37f114faee0
commit r14-7164-g75ed46558a2e085ba12641a47112e37f114faee0
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113039
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113345
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113312
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
I updated users/hjl/pr113312/master branch to handle function pointers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113346
Bug ID: 113346
Summary: [14 Regression] epiphany-elf build failure
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113346
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
This was with r14-7159-g1a80e9558dd7fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112280
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:655b6cb1ea3a0e23124d77dccd5d174ac59c429c
commit r14-7166-g655b6cb1ea3a0e23124d77dccd5d174ac59c429c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113347
Bug ID: 113347
Summary: ICE during gimplification building TVM
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113347
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57047
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57047&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE during gimplification |[13 Regression] ICE during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113126
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, the target milestone is set to 13.3.0 but only references patches which
have gone in for gcc 14 only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Summary|[13/14 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107687
Bug 107687 depends on bug 110997, which changed state.
Bug 110997 Summary: [13 Regression] internal compiler error: in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.cc:8005
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 110997, which changed state.
Bug 110997 Summary: [13 Regression] internal compiler error: in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.cc:8005
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
What|R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113288
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Haochen Jiang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ab847b354ee9e13e6052f78f49f575eae3abf3f
commit r14-7168-g4ab847b354ee9e13e6052f78f49f575eae3abf3f
Author: Haochen Jiang
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113288
--- Comment #6 from Haochen Jiang ---
Fixed on trunk.
101 - 163 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
