https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114596
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tobias, it looks to me like you missed the connection between the first half of
item (1) in 7.3 (I'm still looking at the 5.2 spec):
"Each trait selector for which the correspon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114596
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, I will do no more work on the old implementation, adjust the broken
testcases, and proceed with getting the my new implementation ready for stage 1
submission. I don't know if I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113904
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Per TR12, these are the rules for the scoping/evaluation of these expressions:
"For the match clause of a declare variant directive, any argument of the base
function that is referenced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113904
--- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On further investigation, it appears that both the C and C++ front ends are at
least attempting to parse the context selectors in the correct scope, although
C++ trips over a "use of para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114596
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This bug is addressed in the metadirective/dynamic selector patch set I posted
here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/650725.html
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 58196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5819
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115076
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 58197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58197&action=edit
second test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113904
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My most recent metadirectives/dynamic selector patch set does include partial
support for dynamic selectors. For C/C++ it handles expressions that reference
variables/functions that are globally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110279
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112468
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112973
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111659
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110847
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107942
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26154
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108521
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111287
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108470
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110029
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102397
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 104355, which changed state.
Bug 104355 Summary: Misleading -Warray-bounds documentation says "always out of
bounds"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102998
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is essentially the example for -Warray-parameter=1 in the manual (see
PR102998):
#include
void f (int[static 4]);
void f (int[]); // warning 1
void g (void)
{
int *p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102998
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, I ran into PR113515 with this example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102998
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109708
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I was wondering if some subsequent patch might have caused the first example to
regress rather than this being a documentation bug, but it did not give a
diagnostic at the time the -Wdangling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109708
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90464
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 90464, which changed state.
Bug 90464 Summary: Documentation: incorrect description of -Wunused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90464
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90463
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A quick look through the lists of -Wall and -Wextra options turned up some
others that are missing, too. I'm trying to do a more thorough patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 90463, which changed state.
Bug 90463 Summary: Documentation: -Wunused not listed among the options enabled
by -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90463
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90463
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79193
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115587
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll take care of this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=951
--- Comment #16 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Given that this issue was filed >20 years ago and both the passlist and
documentation have changed drastically since then, I think the
originally-reported bugs are probably irrelevant and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115587
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113905
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Isn't this explicitly prohibited by the spec? Second bullet point at the top
of page 295 in TR13 says:
"If a procedure is determined to be a function variant through more than o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113905
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm. Look also at item 2 at the bottom of page 283, that says that construct
selectors for a variant function are added to its enclosing OpenMP context. I
thought this was the reason for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107067
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88860
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88284
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
While Intel has revived the "Altera" name, the Nios II processor is still
listed as discontinued. I see they are offering ARM-based FPGA products again
instead.
For many years Altera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47928
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The other GCC manuals I'm familiar with don't format things like man pages;
they use things like @deftypefn instead (e.g., see libgcc.texi). I'm
definitely not volunteering to re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47928
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112779
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113904
--- Comment #13 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Leaving this open as we don't have another issue tracking the remaining issues
noted in Comment 9: parsing non-constant expressions in the right scope in the
Fortran front end, and all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118530
--- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60421
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60421&action=edit
test case quuux.C
Another test case from waffl3x which I think is probably a variant of t
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
waffl3x at protonmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118530
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118790
--- Comment #20 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like other people are already investigating this? I know nothing about
GC and this might not even have anything to do with the commit that caused the
regression to appear (like PR118714
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118791
--- Comment #15 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also PR115076. I think the low-level implementation of "declare variant"
is all wrong, it needs to be tracked in the lexical scope by each front end
instead of attached as a globa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||parras at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107067
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/674898.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117150
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117150
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115532
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26154
--- Comment #39 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, the gfortran manual already has substantial sections under "Extensions"
about OpenMP and OpenACC. So I guess I will do the same for the GCC manual,
and make that the place where w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26154
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35614
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111659
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115532
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26154
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109214
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111659
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You're right, I did garble the description of the option in my previous patch.
Will fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116989
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89078
Bug 89078 depends on bug 51820, which changed state.
Bug 51820 Summary: [doc] underscoring documentation incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51820
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51820
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115271
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is this related to PR115076, the issue about attaching "declare variant" info
to the declaration that is in local scope instead of globally?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115076
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thinking about this some more, probably a new tree node type like
OMP_VARIANT_CALL needs to be introduced, that captures the variants in scope at
the call site and the arguments. The problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118457
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this issue ought to be tackled in conjunction with PR115076, the fix
for which will probably take variant resolution out of gimplify_call_expr()
entirely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118694
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see the spec does, in fact, prohibit metadirectives that expand into dynamic
selector code here -- it's at the bottom of page 324 of the OpenMP 6.0
document. So the problem is just the
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As noted by Tobias here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Some recent commits have added large blocks of code to gimplify_call_expr() in
gimplify.cc to handle the OpenM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114596
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113904
--- Comment #9 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The just-committed patches implemented most of the support for dynamic
selectors including user/condition. Remaining bugs are as noted in Comment 7:
allowing references to parameter variables of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102397
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
C23 is now the default C version, so this issue is unblocked. I'm anticipating
some substantial rewrites/reorganization of all the attribute documentation to
address this and other i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118457
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also note that the new testcase c-c++-common/gomp/adjust-args-6.c is xfail'ed
because of this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102397
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PR108796 seems to be more of a "GCC is broken because it doesn't do what I
want" issue, than specifically a documentation issue.
The two issues I'm thinking are most relev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107067
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118791
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Curiously, on the OG14 development branch the rvalue calls work but the lvalue
ones are broken instead:
$ install/bin/x86_64-none-linux-gnu-g++ -fopenmp -S quux.C
quux.C: In instantiation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118791
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ooops, I meant "specific to OG14 branch" in my last comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101759
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106316
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47928
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89078
Bug 89078 depends on bug 47928, which changed state.
Bug 47928 Summary: Gfortran intrinsics documentation paragraph ordering
illogical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47928
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67301
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 113515, which changed state.
Bug 113515 Summary: Wrong documentation for -Wstringop-overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113515
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113515
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118457
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66953
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56682
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116708
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112960
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117029
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118579
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118579
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42270
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've picked up this issue again (after almost 10 years!) because it continues
to annoy me how hard it is to find information in this chapter unless you
already know what to search for.
A pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78874
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
401 - 500 of 546 matches
Mail list logo
