https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120436
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ccf845d9fa157e7ebcf2c589a9fc5d8f298961f
commit r16-936-g6ccf845d9fa157e7ebcf2c589a9fc5d8f298961f
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Mon May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 regression] qcoro fails |[16 regression] qcoro fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120455
--- Comment #3 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
* was prompted
was promoted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120457
Bug ID: 120457
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/pr79920.c fail starting with
r16-924-g1bc5b47f5b06dc
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120455
--- Comment #2 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
sja...@gcc.gnu.org:
Strictly speaking, returning a pointer is not the same as taking it in by
adding const qualifiers. In my code example, "func()" can't change anything
pointed to by "str",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111873
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a067a18d42e338aea990347bb4d16d6a852c4480
commit r13-9724-ga067a18d42e338aea990347bb4d16d6a852c4480
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99832
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 61536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61536&action=edit
Add abi tag to system_clock::to_time_t
Here's a new patch, which includes a test to verify that the abi_tag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120456
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120458
Bug ID: 120458
Summary: module-name does not allow non-ASCII characters
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120459
Bug ID: 120459
Summary: RISC-V: redundant addi
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119378
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.5|14.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 119378, which changed state.
Bug 119378 Summary: [12/13 Regression] Nested template class friend of template
class produces "internal compiler error: unexpected expression âTâ of kind
template_parm_index"
https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120460
Bug ID: 120460
Summary: std::function ignores [[nodiscard]] attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
++ |c++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
With -Wsystem-headers, I get:
```
/opt/compiler-explorer/arm64/gcc-trunk-20250528/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/c++/16.0.0/bits/invoke.h:113:35:
warning: ignoring returned value of type 'A', dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #13)
> I have had a period of not being able to work on gfortran. I'll take a look
> at this today.
Some other patch has been applied to 14-branch onwards that results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120456
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61539
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61539&action=edit
Full testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120456
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Options: `-Ofast -mavx2 -std=c++23`.
Next time please attach the compilable testcase (or place it inline) and not
just a code snip. Also add the options you are using.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116400
--- Comment #15 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #12)
> Created attachment 61532 [details]
> Regeneration script
>
> Attached is a shell script, to be placed in libgfortran/, that can be run in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119298
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8859a06fc8143561dd94ef2342234dbc5ccfd937
commit r16-941-g8859a06fc8143561dd94ef2342234dbc5ccfd937
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
so... if I add this - non-coroutine ...
LazyTask
foo (detail::LazyTaskPromise& p)
{
decltype(auto) Gro = p.get_return_object();
return Gro;
}
we essentially get the same fail;
../temp-coro-tests/pr1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120464
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
Sorry about that. Thanks Jakub. Patch looks good to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120468
Bug ID: 120468
Summary: Inlining fails when using -momit-leaf-frame-pointer,
optimize attribute, and push_options pragma
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99015
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> I am putting a candidate patch in the attachment. I'll approve it after
> finishing tests and bootstraps on amd64, arm64, ppc64.
The patch testing seem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.4
Summary|Inlining fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120468
--- Comment #3 from James Abbatiello ---
Bisecting leads me to
7bc63f1c70331763989d72b7df051e0ce67ff84c
[i386] adjust flag_omit_frame_pointer in a single function [PR113719]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120468
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to James Abbatiello from comment #3)
> Bisecting leads me to
> 7bc63f1c70331763989d72b7df051e0ce67ff84c
> [i386] adjust flag_omit_frame_pointer in a single function [PR113719]
r14-10426 looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120464
--- Comment #6 from Zartaj Majeed ---
Do you mind fixing the "garantee" typo in the last comment too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107600
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0629924777ea20d56d9ea40c3915eb0327a22ac7
commit r16-944-g0629924777ea20d56d9ea40c3915eb0327a22ac7
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107600
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120428
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13)
> > The inner loop is not completely unrolled since std::copy is lowered to
> > __builtin_memmove instead of __built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #11)
Good point, in the reduced testcase, under
https://eel.is/c++draft/class.mem#class.copy.ctor-8 TaskBase doesn't get a move
constructor at all. But in the origina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120453
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
In the original testcase we do choose to do NRVO, but this fails
/* Don't check copy-initialization for NRV in a coroutine ramp; we
implement this case as NRV, but it's specified as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120449
--- Comment #6 from Zartaj Majeed ---
Thanks - the following works
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
index f71cb2652d5..6d7ef006c6a 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
@@ -3318,7 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120449
--- Comment #7 from Zartaj Majeed ---
Should I open a separate bug for libstdc++ for the warning?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd9d8f9b294d9aef8799227234bd09e26a9a6640
commit r16-948-gbd9d8f9b294d9aef8799227234bd09e26a9a6640
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120449
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zartaj Majeed from comment #6)
> Underline is wrong and confusing with --save-temps
Don't use -save-temps if you want decent diagnostic/column info.
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
