https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120029
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120009
--- Comment #6 from H. Peter Anvin ---
I would say it would either take up 1 bit or be an error. Bitfields actually
was one of the biggest design mistakes in C: the width should always have been
part of the type (like intX_t or now, finally, _Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117783
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61241|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05ea8baf6ff96c77a9a2467d5c45b1ed575fca92
commit r16-309-g05ea8baf6ff96c77a9a2467d5c45b1ed575fca92
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119378
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05ea8baf6ff96c77a9a2467d5c45b1ed575fca92
commit r16-309-g05ea8baf6ff96c77a9a2467d5c45b1ed575fca92
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:670250c904dd5c8a1e0a0d241c42d5657400cdc8
commit r15-9605-g670250c904dd5c8a1e0a0d241c42d5657400cdc8
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119378
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:670250c904dd5c8a1e0a0d241c42d5657400cdc8
commit r15-9605-g670250c904dd5c8a1e0a0d241c42d5657400cdc8
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120029
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The simplest fix is just:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc
@@ -880,6 +880,9 @@ path::operator+=(const path& p)
return *this;
}
+ if (&p == this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120029
--- Comment #4 from Haoxiang Yu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The simplest fix is just:
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc
> @@ -880,6 +880,9 @@ path::operator+=(const pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120037
Bug ID: 120037
Summary: Structured binding ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119989
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dc40eddbe69566869f7aafb78c31c4850b8aeb7
commit r16-301-g4dc40eddbe69566869f7aafb78c31c4850b8aeb7
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119989
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target|Avr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #15 from Konstantin Belousov ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
> Created attachment 61250 [details]
> Tentative fix
>
> Please give it a try on FreeBSD.
I can confirm that the checkout of master at
4a02f3a1f96e9b339a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120019
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Please detect support during configure time and create an operand modifier
> that will output "gs " or "fs " for non-default address spaces. Then output
> e.g. "%^%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #16 from Konstantin Belousov ---
(In reply to Konstantin Belousov from comment #15)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
> > Created attachment 61250 [details]
> > Tentative fix
> >
> > Please give it a try on FreeBSD.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011
--- Comment #13 from Stefan Kneifel ---
Correct, -R'ing this patch against 15.1.1 sources reverses the regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 61252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61252&action=edit
patch
I'm testing this, it fixes the small.c testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120034
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We get (-O2 -mbmi2):
bzhi_emulation1:
.LFB1:
.cfi_startproc
movq$-1, %rax
shlx%rsi, %rax, %rax
notl%eax
andl%edi, %eax
ret
that has single u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120034
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
As expected it works for
uint32_t bzhi_emulation1(uint32_t value, uint32_t index) {
return value & ((1 << index) - 1);
}
but we can generate DImode bzhi just fine for this case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120035
Bug ID: 120035
Summary: Loops are not optimized when "unsigned i" is used
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120035
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It works with
_Bool f(){
_Bool retval = 0;
for(unsigned int i=0; i< (1u << 30); ++i)
retval = retval || g(i);
return retval;
}
it also works when g() takes an [unsigned] long. So a bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119305
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> Jakub/Jason, shall we backport r15-521 to the 14 branch in order to fix this
> PR for 14.3?
That would make sense to me, but let's see what Jakub thinks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 116671, which changed state.
Bug 116671 Summary: Compiling iostream and string as modules fails if string is
compiled first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116671
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115206
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115027
--- Comment #3 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
(For my own keeping track, Jakub replied to that patch with a suggestion:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/Zwlg8VYJXQmEC65C@tucnak/ )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116671
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115692
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119305
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r15-521 was meant for 15 only:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:30:48AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Hmm, maybe maybe_clone_body shouldn't clear DECL_SAVED_TREE for aliases, but
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119971
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The pattern Andrew quoted I think is OK. It "eats" the & 31 because that's
implicitly done by the hardware for the "w" forms of the shift instructions.
The real problem is when we use that shift count in
om gcc/specs
COLLECT_GCC=gcc/xg++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=gcc/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /home/slyfox/dev/git/gcc/configure --disable-multilib
--disable-bootstrap --disable-lto --disable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-libgomp
--disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117035
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
Avraham Hollander changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120023
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
Bug 68331 depends on bug 120006, which changed state.
Bug 120006 Summary: [15 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fipa-pta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120016
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120013
--- Comment #9 from Nathaniel Shead ---
*** Bug 120016 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #32 from LIU Hao ---
Created attachment 61251
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61251&action=edit
another non-working patch
Unfortunately, decreasing the incoming stack alignment to 4 but also keeping
preferred st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|i?86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120012
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120020
Bug ID: 120020
Summary: [Optimization opportunity] Optimize repeated inline
assembly operations when semantically equivalent
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120020
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh the inline-asm in myDivMod2 also is missing an early clobber for b too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120020
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Oh the inline-asm in myDivMod2 also is missing an early clobber for b too.
s/b/dividendRemainder/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120020
--- Comment #6 from Jin Haobo ---
Sorry, the code in my reproduction is wrong. I will re-show the C++ code. This
code is right, and Clang generate the right optimal assembly indeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120022
Jin Haobo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120022
--- Comment #5 from Jin Haobo ---
Bug 119917 is another Bug which is submit by myself! But this issue has still
not been resolved so far, and with no more reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120019
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> Between 20250428 and 20250429, Solaris/x86 bootstrap with the native as got
> broken compiling libgcc:
>
> /var/gcc/regression/master/11.4-gcc/build/./gcc/xgcc
> -B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51d76593947a2dba90f52b394fdf70602fa8ff6a
commit r14-11704-g51d76593947a2dba90f52b394fdf70602fa8ff6a
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120021
Alex changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Offloading vs. C++ |Offloading vs. C++
|'std::vala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2317297a745a5b73015074621df9290569fb67d3
commit r13-9626-g2317297a745a5b73015074621df9290569fb67d3
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85e4f21f9e90fc70b8c7c75ec8e4d0766008ac6e
commit r16-302-g85e4f21f9e90fc70b8c7c75ec8e4d0766008ac6e
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:01ebce59db2039c6d63b565295095fd6e3b02d57
commit r15-9604-g01ebce59db2039c6d63b565295095fd6e3b02d57
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119983
--- Comment #5 from Nathaniel Shead ---
(In reply to gap mman from comment #4)
> (In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #2)
> > Thanks for the report! As Andrew noted, the ICE is fixed for 14.3 by
> > r14-10825-g01d3a974fe3474c37cd52b595c29d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d30dfa8586b5d12e341a7965ef7970a2b8402519
commit r12-11078-gd30dfa8586b5d12e341a7965ef7970a2b8402519
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.3|12.5
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120025
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I've got on clang forum
I tried looking for that but I don't see it on discourse.llvm.org at all nor on
as an issue at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113327
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch that fixes the problem for this_thread::sleep_for,
timed_mutex::try_until, condition_variable::wait_until and a few other places,
but it's not sufficient.
There are other overflows in e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113327
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> There are other overflows in e.g. sleep_until:
>
> time_point end_of_time(minutes::max());
> std::this_thread::sleep_until(end_of_time);
>
> This f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120036
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|15.0|16.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119305
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
Bug 68331 depends on bug 120006, which changed state.
Bug 120006 Summary: [15 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fipa-pta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120013
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120014
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120013
--- Comment #8 from Nathaniel Shead ---
*** Bug 120014 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 115706, which changed state.
Bug 115706 Summary: Compiling headers as header units fails depending on order.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115706
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115706
--- Comment #9 from Nathaniel Shead ---
Created attachment 61256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61256&action=edit
test_module_headers.py
Attached is a script I've used for testing random orders of building standard
library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115706
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120036
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] ICE on |[16 Regression] ICE on
|h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120038
Bug ID: 120038
Summary: Missed combining shr and shrx in collatz_f1()
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120037
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly tweaked with the specializations outside of namespace std (though this
one doesn't compile in 7.x).
namespace std {
template struct tuple_size;
template struct tuple_element;
}
struct T { int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120029
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, I don't think we need to care about the performance of this case. It's not
a realistic operation that is commonly needed for paths.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120037
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120039
Bug ID: 120039
Summary: [15/16 Regression] Structured binding in condition ICE
since r15-1793
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #33 from Gabriel Ivăncescu ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #31)
> (In reply to Gabriel Ivăncescu from comment #30)
> > Why would it not be safe? For MinGW specifically, what's not safe about it?
> > The entire Windows stack ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91406
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc -Q -v lies about what |gcc -Q -v --help=optimizers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #34 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ivăncescu from comment #33)
> Shouldn't using SSE automatically re-align it to 16, seeing as the alignment
> requirement is stricter? I don't see how __force_align_arg_pointer__ is
> useful a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119823
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a02f3a1f96e9b339a203fc4647a76413a51440e
commit r16-295-g4a02f3a1f96e9b339a203fc4647a76413a51440e
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120019
Bug ID: 120019
Summary: [16 regression] PR 111657 change broke Solaris/x86
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120018
--- Comment #3 from Marc Poulhiès ---
Ok, thanks Andrew, we'll take care of fixing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120004
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
unreachable() is in some cases added to make the CFG valid - in the past we had
a return in such places but unreachable seemed to be a better fit.
For asm() we'd need "[[noreturn]]" (or rather [[return]]?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17695fe9ca15046f32833c345ab2406b7c080416
commit r15-9601-g17695fe9ca15046f32833c345ab2406b7c080416
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120004
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> unreachable() is in some cases added to make the CFG valid - in the past we
> had a return in such places but unreachable seemed to be a better fit.
>
> For as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119989
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21aa0abcf1aba3a5f410b01628e8fc7f55ee8786
commit r12-11077-g21aa0abcf1aba3a5f410b01628e8fc7f55ee8786
Author: Georg-Johan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120029
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually it looks like we can make it optimally efficient without any
difficulty:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/fs_path.cc
@@ -914,6 +914,10 @@ path::operator+=(con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119378
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30432ffd9220cc949ef470c47455c6a64f2cdb69
commit r14-11706-g30432ffd9220cc949ef470c47455c6a64f2cdb69
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30432ffd9220cc949ef470c47455c6a64f2cdb69
commit r14-11706-g30432ffd9220cc949ef470c47455c6a64f2cdb69
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120042
Bug ID: 120042
Summary: [16] RISC-V: stage1 fails to build with error:
‘dominated_by_p’ was not declared in this scope in
tree-vectorizer.h
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119994
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> The thread on the J3 ML starts here:
>
> https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2025-April/015230.html
While John Reid thinks the code is valid F2018,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120029
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
ASan pointed out somewhere this isn't quite right yet, but I can fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120043
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120043
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120044
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-30
Summary|wrong cod
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
