https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
found while reducing testcase
* bd71889b901 2021-03-23 | c++: Note duplicates in symbol table [PR 99283]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell ---
more fixes
* d82797420c2 2021-03-26 | c++: imported templates and alias-template changes
[PR 99283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #15 from Nathan Sidwell ---
another one encountered on the way ...
* 5f3c6027257 2021-03-30 | c++: duplicate const static members [PR 99283]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #18 from Nathan Sidwell ---
* 584731ecedf 2021-04-01 | c++: inter-cluster import order [PR 99283]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #19 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Yes! that seems to have done it!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
--- Comment #21 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Pants
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I ran into this working on module bugs (99823). While it is not affecting that
debugging, it has code smell.
We have the following:
#pragma GCC visibility push(default)
.. some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 99283, which changed state.
Bug 99283 Summary: [modules] ICE in assert_definition, at cp/module.cc:4608
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99283
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99380
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99605
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I removed the scans, they're too brittle, didn't realize this report was a
thing
* 671f9f5c0f0 2021-04-06 | c++: Simplify va_arg test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99446
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Well it would be nice if it could show the token in the included file, but if
that's difficult your solution is perfectly fine. thanks
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I see the problem. it's the logic in the earlier while loop. testing a fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99446
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97395
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96258
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96258
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97460
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97471
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97471
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97471
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I'm seeing compilation errors of a file that just contains:
#include
following
* e957b86ca26 2020-10-21 | libstdc++: Rebase include/pstl to current upstream
[Thomas Rodgers]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Sidwell ---
ah, the logic to squirrel away lookups on a magic attribute list, records that
nothing is found. But we don't preserve that negative lookup when injecting
these lookups into the parameter binding. So we'l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97834
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
gcov has its own buffer. Hm, perhaps its not (no longer?) matching typical
disc block sizes. Back then they were 512bytes, now they're usually 4K, right?
Is gcov's buffer 1K?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97834
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
you're looking in the wrong place. see gcov_var and GCOV_BLOCK_SIZE. it is
indeed 1k, but there;s some buffer doubling code in gcov_allocate that I don't
recall and am not sure why it's needed/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97858
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97858
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97877
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97877
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
David, to build just cc1plus: 'make -C gcc cc1plus -j$how_many_cpus_available'
pass 'CXXFLAGS=$whatever' to override the default (usually -O2 -g)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98116
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98107
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98116
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98115
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98116
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98157
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98116
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
sigh, guess I get to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49719
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49719&action=edit
patch
does this fix it? I can't run the fixinclude testsuite on gcc119 as autogen
doesn't appear to be there:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49720
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49720&action=edit
v2
Ok, I think I'm understanding what fixinclude's testsuite is looking for.
Here's an updated patch, using t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49721
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49721&action=edit
v3
oh, I think I'm supposed to run ./genfixes too ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Hm, I thought there was sufficient #ifing to prevent that ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98300
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49769
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49769&action=edit
potential patch
Care to give this patch a try?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98311
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98297
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
||2020-12-16
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-16
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98311
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98316
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Looks good, and separating out cc1plus' libraries from other executables is
goodness.
do you want to take this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98315
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think this is fixed by
6ff747f023c 2020-12-16 | c++: Fix (some) solaris breakage
please let me know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98315
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Another fix: 269e82d49e2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
||2020-12-16
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98315
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
gah! there was me thinking the only networking thing in cp is
mapper-client.cc. (It's the only thing that cares about networking. That
mapper-resolver.cc needed a tweak should have clued me in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98315
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
sorry for not getting this right sooner:
b7b6879f0b5: c++: Another solaris header use [PR 98315]
|RESOLVED
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
fixed:
3f78c8cb7f0 2020-12-16 | c++tools: fix install-strip [PR 98328]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98297
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed trunk, 8d8bb85b486 2020-12-16 | c++: Fix template parm ICE [PR 98297]
backports to 10, 9, & 8 in progress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98324
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
need to copy some more libcpp configurey bits ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98297
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49789
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49789&action=edit
try this
I tried building with clang, but it barfed about invalid utf8 in libiberty.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97186
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97186
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
The error abount conversion failure, if it is a bug, is unrelated to the ICE.
I say 'if', because I think there have been changes in regards to whether
functions decay to pointers which can be implicitly co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97186
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
libcpp/lex.c (lex_raw_string)
after_backslash:
if (note->t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97177
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97171
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97177
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97219
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81271
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
fwiw, I was kind of hoping the compiler could spot the test of three adjacent
bits and do a 3-bit extraction and comparison to zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97268
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|geoffk at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
the resolution of this report is incorrect.
t: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
constexpr int *Foo (){
extern int i;
return &i;
}
int i;
static_assert(&i == Foo());
This should work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97306
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31775
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95263
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93606
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Now I look carefully, it appears to be trying to compile libiberty.a (the
library) as a source file. Of course that'll barf.
Configured using "CXX='clang -x c++ -std=c++11' CC=clang" (Of course I didn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98340
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98358
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98315
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98356
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2020-12-18
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
yeah, I think I got a bit std::move-happy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98363
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
FWIW I think it premature to start agressively filing these kinds of defects.
We haven't added the module testsuite yet.
||2020-12-18
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell ---
ah, I didn't know the binary/text distinction descended below the FILE level on
windows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98362
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49797&action=edit
test patch
care to try this?
dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-18
Summary|C++20 module binary bloat |C++20 module global
||constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98362
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
* 785b49434d2 2020-12-18 | c++: Fix windows binary files [PR 98362]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
It's me having a thinko about case sensitivity.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
901 - 1000 of 1171 matches
Mail list logo