https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g.
--- gcc/cp/decl.cc.jj 2024-02-15 09:51:34.460065992 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/decl.cc 2024-02-19 18:20:23.423410659 +0100
@@ -15263,7 +15263,14 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *dec
/* Record c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113997
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, adjusted testcase:
struct S { int a, b; };
int foo () { return 42; }
template
const S a = { 42, foo () };
const S *b = &a <0>;
template
const S c = { 42, foo () };
template const S c <0>;
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108802
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113997
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113998
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113997
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
> Anyway, renaming the binding label, like
>subroutine acc_attach_c(x) bind(C, name="acc_attach_renamed")
> makes the code compile.
Well, the code *does* compile as it is only a warning.
* * *
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> E.g.
> --- gcc/cp/decl.cc.jj 2024-02-15 09:51:34.460065992 +0100
> +++ gcc/cp/decl.cc2024-02-19 18:20:23.423410659 +0100
> @@ -15263,7 +15263,14 @@ grokdecl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113997
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> > Anyway, renaming the binding label, like
> >subroutine acc_attach_c(x) bind(C, name="acc_attach_renamed")
> > makes the code compile.
>
> Well,
scv64-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-multilib
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-9062-20240219114159-geb17bdc211a-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-riscv64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240219 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113997
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> However, an alternative is the following - which is (nearly) identical,
> except that GCC does some GFC-CFC and back conversations – independent
> whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/gimple-fold.cc.jj 2024-02-06 12:59:58.343050621 +0100
+++ gcc/gimple-fold.cc 2024-02-19 19:48:11.162126759 +0100
@@ -995,9 +995,27 @@ gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op (gimple_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113998
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug.
I'm testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113999
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-19
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #11 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Unlikely to be ever fixed, at least Linux has migrated to IEEE quad long
> double on powerpc64le.
Perhaps several *BSDs and AIX are using IBM format though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Then the maintainers or users of those targets should consider contributing a
fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Nobody is blocking proper double double evaluation support. But somebody needs
to do the work, spend a few weeks on it and submit that. I'm just saying that
is highly unlikely. If somebody was really both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113957
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20e57660e64eab7c9ef0f2dd25f3088835f8f44f
commit r14-9072-g20e57660e64eab7c9ef0f2dd25f3088835f8f44f
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112397
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1609fdff16f17ead37666f6d0e801800ee3d04d2
commit r14-9073-g1609fdff16f17ead37666f6d0e801800ee3d04d2
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114001
Bug ID: 114001
Summary: is_contiguous considers unlimited polymorphic dummy
always as contiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113957
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114002
Bug ID: 114002
Summary: [OpenACC][OpenACC 3.3] Add 'acc_attach'/'acc_detach'
routine
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113983
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d70facd54a576faca1bfba96e92e1475e0da22a3
commit r14-9074-gd70facd54a576faca1bfba96e92e1475e0da22a3
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113983
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Fixed.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114003
Bug ID: 114003
Summary: Missing MIN/MAX
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105250
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So, let's just adjust the testcase then?
We still want to remove the superfluous instruction, but that should be covered
in a separate bug. So yeah, I think th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113995
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113993
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113986
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113986
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #2)
> Confirmed. I never heard about that config - at the time I tried it on an
> old system with GCC4.8 and that built and passed all tests. I can't see a
> reason to ever sw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110520
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb37ea529745c38dcf86c3cdbedb66df69ea9e35
commit r14-9075-geb37ea529745c38dcf86c3cdbedb66df69ea9e35
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111289
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5651ad62b08096a155a7e394c7494f5ff1c04f4f
commit r14-9076-g5651ad62b08096a155a7e394c7494f5ff1c04f4f
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110520
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111289
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] |[13 Regression] Unwarranted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113993
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 57467 [details]
> gcc14-pr113993-wip.patch
>
> WIP patch.
I know this might be a stupid question but I notice this handles 96 and 128bit
but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113994
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113060
--- Comment #7 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hi,
> Note that this example adds a mediate function template
> (test_array_element_initializable) to "reduce" the non-constexpr-ness of
> std::declval.
That's very clever, thank you!
Is it _suppos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113993
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 57467 [details]
> > gcc14-pr113993-wip.patch
> >
> > WIP patch.
>
> I know this might be a s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113993
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Following is much shorter:
--- gcc/tree-call-cdce.cc.jj2024-01-03 11:51:37.654646209 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-call-cdce.cc 2024-02-20 01:04:42.896987568 +0100
@@ -677,14 +677,14 @@ gen_conditions_for_pow
.byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size rot,.-rot
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 14.0.1 20240219 (experimental) [remotes/origin/HEAD
r14-9074-gd70facd54a]"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114004
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-20
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114005
Bug ID: 114005
Summary: Constructing a constexpr std::initializer_list ICEs
GCC when using C++ modules
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113060
--- Comment #8 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #7)
> Hi,
>
> > Note that this example adds a mediate function template
> > (test_array_element_initializable) to "reduce" the non-constexpr-ness of
> > std::declval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43613
Chen Chen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84757
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
I hear that the RISCV folks are going to implementing subreg handling in RA for
GCC 15, though I am not sure if that will fix this though but we will see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90659
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #13 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113988
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> --- gcc/gimple-fold.cc.jj 2024-02-06 12:59:58.343050621 +0100
> +++ gcc/gimple-fold.cc2024-02-19 19:48:11.162126759 +0100
> @@ -995,9 +995,27 @@ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Fixed the error-recovery bug on the trunk, but the ice on the #c4 testcase
> is still there (and the question is if it is valid or not). If it is valid,
> proba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113711
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a9a9bd415ed1d211e00990226b90199407b3448
commit r14-9078-g5a9a9bd415ed1d211e00990226b90199407b3448
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Hmm, is the testcase in comment #4 a regression though? It ICEs even in the
> same way in GCC 4.1.2 all the way to the trunk including GCC 7.3.0.
It is. gcc 3
101 - 158 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
