https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118719
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
More generally, [X/Y/Z Regression] means a regression present in the X.x, Y.x
and Z.x release series.
The 'Known to work' and 'Known to fail' fields can be used to provide more
specific information about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64869
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
The problem is in Freeze.Freeze_Before:
-- If the entity is a type declared in an inner package, it may be
-- frozen by an outer declaration before the package itself is
-- froz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> > [expr.prim.lambda.capture] p8 says "If a lambda-expression explicitly
> > captures an entity that is not odr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64869
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
In fact this should be dealt with in Uninstall_Declarations:
-- On exit from the package scope, we must preserve the visibility
-- established by use clauses in the current scope. Two cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64869
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #5)
> And the papers that changed this are
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1091r3.html and
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43720
mauro russo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ing.russomauro at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25220
mauro russo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ing.russomauro at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118722
Bug ID: 118722
Summary: accepted undefined static integral data member
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115190
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-02
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118723
--- Comment #4 from Ran Regev ---
The log/compiled file can be found here:
https://github.com/regevran/scylladb/blob/scylla-contracts/logs/cc0pdb3w.out.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c++
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118723
--- Comment #5 from Ran Regev ---
I can confirm that the following change removed the ICE (i.e now there is no
such error):
git diff main.cc
diff --git a/main.cc b/main.cc
index 3802966626..69e54675a8 100644
--- a/main.cc
+++ b/main.cc
@@ -245,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60352|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60353|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the only reason why the original testcase was shows up as a regression is
due to GCC 5 adding a lifetime markers in the same location as dtors would be
called for scalars that are in memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
--- Comment #2 from xiaohuba2021 ---
There is a typo in the code mentioned above. The correct version is:
```
#include
int main() {
volatile int x = 10;
for (int l = 1; int d = x - l; l = d + 1) {
int &z = d;
std::cout
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
--- Comment #1 from xiaohuba2021 ---
upd: the code does not crash, but is killed due to a timeout.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60352
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60352&action=edit
dejagnuified testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-02
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118722
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593 changes IRA to increase saving and restoring
callee-saved
register cost by REG_FREQ_MAX, which is defined as 1000. As the result, IRA
avoids
using callee-saved registers. For
void foo (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8262c9041feddd7446840a9532cf458452f3587
commit r15-7321-ge8262c9041feddd7446840a9532cf458452f3587
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun Feb 2 06:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118713
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd6247cb8fc11a15e23e949092f89d24ff329209
commit r15-7318-gdd6247cb8fc11a15e23e949092f89d24ff329209
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jan 31 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118723
Bug ID: 118723
Summary: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118713
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118722
--- Comment #2 from mauro russo ---
ok,
I see now the example in cppreference about special cases where, despite that
static data member value is read,
it is usable in constant expressions
and
an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is applied to it
(s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25220
--- Comment #5 from mauro russo ---
found out, through the discussion on PR 118722, that my case falls in the
exceptions where there is no odr-use.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116176
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118722
--- Comment #6 from mauro russo ---
sure,
I was not saying disagreement,
just a new point learned :-)
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118713
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dceec9efbd19b50ff9e5268b9bc35d5c44b2f6e2
commit r15-7320-gdceec9efbd19b50ff9e5268b9bc35d5c44b2f6e2
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun Feb 2 05:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117097
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111477
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
While gfc-14 rejects the code in comment#1,
pr114722-c1.f90:35:22:
35 | test_description = test_description_t(do_something)
| 1
Error: Component 'test_function_'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118724
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works here with gcc-15.
Intel, AMD flang and NAG accept the code silently.
Nvidia generates an error similar to current gcc-14.
See also pr111477#c3
Can we identify the fix?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60350&action=edit
ira: Don't increase callee-saved register cost by 1000x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36388
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36571
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libgomp |c++
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118700
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fno-canonical-system-headers fixes it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118700
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Invocation.html#index-fno-canonical-system-headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Preprocessor-Options.html#index-fno-canonical-system-headers
There is not enough docu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118700
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I think this is by design. But there is not much documentation on it though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61918
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect -fno-canonical-system-headers fixes the behavior to what you think it
should be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93289
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-February/061662.html
Note: the testcase generates a hard error with NAG, while with ifx the most
can get is a warning...
The patch does not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118722
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to mauro russo from comment #4)
> > an ODR violation is still an undefined behavior
>
> That's interesting,
>
> I supposed this was only for the case of multiple/different definitions.
No. A simpli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86960
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #19)
> The ICE was fixed by r15-3195. I'm not sure it's valid code so this may be
> fixed now.
The odd thing is if the outer class was not a variadic arg template, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can't reproduce with the reduced testcase in comment #6 with GCC 12+. I have
not tested the original testcase though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Summary|[12/13/14/15 reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116176
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf24c0fa53870da6e666a97b79c4b053317c4951
commit r15-7317-gcf24c0fa53870da6e666a97b79c4b053317c4951
Author: David Malcolm
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118723
--- Comment #1 from Ran Regev ---
The smallest file size I can compress the result of -freport-bug is 1.6M
Please advise on how to proceed (as only up to 1M is allowed to be uploaded)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118722
--- Comment #4 from mauro russo ---
> an ODR violation is still an undefined behavior
That's interesting,
I supposed this was only for the case of multiple/different definitions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118723
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ran Regev from comment #1)
> The smallest file size I can compress the result of -freport-bug is 1.6M
> Please advise on how to proceed (as only up to 1M is allowed to be uploaded)
I guess this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118703
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118722
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116244
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Starting to think this is actually an IRA bug that was partially fixed about 11
years ago. Testing a potential fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118485
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118703
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60348|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118703
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2d32c81a993a27f3e9b5408f5d20580fe58feca
commit r15-7319-ge2d32c81a993a27f3e9b5408f5d20580fe58feca
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115032
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
PR-118703 (introducing builtins ctz, ctzl, ctzll, clz, clzl, clzll) has been
closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118723
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
There was a defect report in this area and GCC is correctly accepting this code
now IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
DR1710 and DR 343
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/343.html
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1710.html
Implemented by r10-7403 though a defect across all language levels rather than
C++17+ ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the libstdc++ patch is still needed there because clang does not implement
the defect report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
See my analysis in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118347#c4 about
why this is valid C++17 at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111477
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at archaeologic dot
codes
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111477
--- Comment #2 from Damian Rouson ---
Scratch that. I think the code in the original submission _might_ be invalid
because it uses an internal subprogram rather than module procedure. So I'll
submit a new bug report because I think this one is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118724
Bug ID: 118724
Summary: [F08] Gfortran rejects passing a procedure as an
actual argument to a procedure pointer dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118724
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49637
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #12)
> I've suggested that we reopen DR 214 in order to make this testcase valid.
Looks like that never happened.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118571
--- Comment #14 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #13)
> Closing as fixed.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26724
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |documentation
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
--- Comment #5 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102915
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118725
Bug ID: 118725
Summary: libcpp build failure with NLS enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118725
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
How was libintl built?
Did you build it as part of gcc or separately?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118725
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This could also be a bug in crosstool ng.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60893
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
reorder_blocks_and_partition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60893
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* Disable -freorder-blocks-and-partition when unwind tables are being
emitted for Darwin < 9 (OSX 10.5).
The strategy is, "Unless the user has specifically set/unset an unwind
flag we wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dturnbull at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118725
--- Comment #4 from Chris Packham ---
> How was libintl built?
> Did you build it as part of gcc or separately?
Built separately
> This could also be a bug in crosstool ng.
Yes that's certainly a possibility.
> What was the command to invo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Use scratch register to |Use scratch register to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-01-15 00:00:00 |2025-2-1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25320
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-12 20:49:38 |2025-2-1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118725
--- Comment #5 from Chris Packham ---
I'll add that it seems to only happen with gettext-0.23.1. If I pin the config
to use gettext-0.22.5 the build succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
rsion:
```
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20250201/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging
--enable-libstdcxx-backtrace=yes --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118721
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not the scope of ubsan.
To diagnose this generally (unless forward propagation etc. makes it clear out
of bounds) you really need object known object boundaries for that.
So it is more like a variant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #15 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Unfortunately not; that is https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2313.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Aren't then in C++17 at least the std::tuple* using structured bindings objects
(each v_i in that case is a variable) and thus entities?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ca6bbf84c168056c94b5f0374fb82916ee24772
commit r15-7316-g8ca6bbf84c168056c94b5f0374fb82916ee24772
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a10a46d7b61d694dc0114175c45deb61df96e918
commit r13-9358-ga10a46d7b61d694dc0114175c45deb61df96e918
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118712
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c79b66dbcaa63fb76abbae9d794dbce68338400
commit r14-11266-g8c79b66dbcaa63fb76abbae9d794dbce68338400
Author: Eric Botcazou
100 matches
Mail list logo
