https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
FYI, this is still happening at least with GCC 13.3.0. We got again the build
issue in our autobuilder today:
https://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/f37b03dc47da8f54c583b33cac960daeed72c29f/build-end.lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60865
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
This does not fail for any version since at least 6.5.0 (or even 5.5.0
according to Known to work), can be likely closed as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107032#c5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120321
Bug ID: 120321
Summary: Inconsistent line coverage for "for(;;)" "while(1)"
etc
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #9)
> I was not able to reproduce this on c8000
So, the LRA-enabled bootstrap works for you without any problems?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120322
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O{s,2,3} |[16 regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120323
Bug ID: 120323
Summary: ICE when mixing #include and import std
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
tstrap
--enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 16.0.0 20250517 (experimental) (GCC)
[509] %
[509] % gcctk -O3 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120323
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
Created attachment 61455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61455&action=edit
Result of compilation with -freport-bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120260
--- Comment #2 from Markus Winterer ---
I could not find a simple solution to the problem such as a compiler option,
instead there seems to be a limit of about 2 GByte static memory at which
programs no longer run reliably although the physicall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120318
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #31 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062177.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120327
Bug ID: 120327
Summary: OpenMP, triangular collapsed for-loop,
maybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to aneris from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> > tl;dr if you want to compile with strict -std=c++20 -pedantic settings, you
> > need to strictly follow the rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120320
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
The problem is the CNF/DNF of the constraints in
template
requires(DenseMatrix || DenseMatrix || SparseMatrix ||
SparseMatrix)
struct storage_mul
template
struct storage_mul
template
struct storage_mul
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120320
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
or rather:
--- a/matrix.h
+++ b/matrix.h
@@ -1187,7 +1187,9 @@ struct storage_mul
Specialization for DenseMatrix * Matrix or Matrix * DenseMatrix or
SparseMatrix * Matrix or
Matrix * SparseMatrix. */
tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120326
Bug ID: 120326
Summary: problems with attribute __ms_struct__
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #15 from aneris ---
(In reply to aneris from comment #14)
> (In reply to aneris from comment #13)
> So I was wondering, is it really out of the question to promote __int128_t to
> an integer type by default like Clang? It'd make so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120324
Bug ID: 120324
Summary: Code rejected as constant due to invalid read through
reference member
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120325
Bug ID: 120325
Summary: [Regression] GCC-15 cannot build LLVM 20.1.5 with
CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=20
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
Yes.
Test results with LRA at git revision d0571638a6b are here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-May/847159.html
I've just about finished check with reload at same commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120013
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nshead at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 120323, which changed state.
Bug 120323 Summary: ICE when mixing #include and import std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120323
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120323
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99000
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120328
Bug ID: 120328
Summary: Building gcobol fails in non English systems
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #17 from aneris ---
Alright, I understand. Thank you again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120329
Bug ID: 120329
Summary: Combine temporarily creates paradoxical mem subregs
for strict-alignment targets
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120329
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I assume you mean with -mstrict-align (otherwise STRICT_ALIGNMENT is not true
for aarch64).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120329
--- Comment #2 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
Created attachment 61459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61459&action=edit
validate_subreg_hardening.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120324
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120329
--- Comment #3 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
Alternative way to reproduce the issue is to apply the attached
validate_subreg_hardening.patch to increase the checks for subregs.
When the snippet from the description is built, it results in ICE:
duri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120329
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dimitar Dimitrov from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I assume you mean with -mstrict-align (otherwise STRICT_ALIGNMENT is not
> > true for aarch64).
>
> I'm cross
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120322
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding -funreachable-traps :
main:
.LFB3:
.cfi_startproc
ud2
.cfi_endproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120329
--- Comment #4 from Dimitar Dimitrov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I assume you mean with -mstrict-align (otherwise STRICT_ALIGNMENT is not
> true for aarch64).
I'm cross-building for armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf, and STRI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #32 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc21caefbc2d63be1315ca062e977affa74eacc2
commit r15-9695-gdc21caefbc2d63be1315ca062e977affa74eacc2
Author: Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #32)
> The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
> :
Preparing for the backport of the follow-on patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120275
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120322
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120310
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Guess one case is when tree DSE removes all stores to some automatic
> addressable variable, in that case it would be nice to populate debug stmts
> to all thos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120320
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120322
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #13 from aneris ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> tl;dr if you want to compile with strict -std=c++20 -pedantic settings, you
> need to strictly follow the rules of the standard.
I understand, though, at the very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120323
Alexander Lelyakin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61455|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #14 from aneris ---
(In reply to aneris from comment #13)
> I did some digging and this is because std::is_integral_v<__int128_t> is
> unconditionally true in libc++, unlike in libstdc++ where it's only true
> when the GNU extension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115423
Kael Franco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaelfandrew at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31313
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blubban at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120331
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think I have a patch to do this. It undoes the push but only if there is one
statement in the sequence. Though we could extend it later on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53240
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39601
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120330
Bug ID: 120330
Summary: regex: [\B] should be legal
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120331
Bug ID: 120331
Summary: useless NON_LVALUE not fully elided by genmatch
generated code
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|useless NON_LVALUE not |match causes an extra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44884
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120331
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61460&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45000
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Summary|internal compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86811, which changed state.
Bug 86811 Summary: Vax port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86811
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86811
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120332
Bug ID: 120332
Summary: Line coverage for labels refers to implicit "else"
clauses before it
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
71 matches
Mail list logo