https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105191
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4822108e61ab879067482704f2f7d1670813d61a
commit r12-8066-g4822108e61ab879067482704f2f7d1670813d61a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105191
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4822108e61ab879067482704f2f7d1670813d61a
commit r12-8066-g4822108e61ab879067482704f2f7d1670813d61a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96604
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58586721c79f77224b8571a5dba732620d5546ab
commit r12-8065-g58586721c79f77224b8571a5dba732620d5546ab
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58586721c79f77224b8571a5dba732620d5546ab
commit r12-8065-g58586721c79f77224b8571a5dba732620d5546ab
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
eggert at cs dot ucla.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/592889.html
> the above patch seems to fix "make jit.pdf", but doesn't fix "make jit.dvi";
> it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105191
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103892
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Still affects trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105146
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105154
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105153
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105153
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b4495d3c4040d8f56c05dd254d76269d4471623
commit r12-8063-g7b4495d3c4040d8f56c05dd254d76269d4471623
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105154
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0dfaf562521ba97c18398d027bf44a15f802f303
commit r12-8062-g0dfaf562521ba97c18398d027bf44a15f802f303
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105146
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29e355d0d671c7474935220e8bef784f05143820
commit r12-8061-g29e355d0d671c7474935220e8bef784f05143820
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105161
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Debug binds in edges was something I considered for some time, but concluded it
would be unlikely to bring useful debug information: the confluence operator
for debug-bind-capable decls during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
--- Comment #11 from Tomas Kalibera ---
Thanks for the very quick fix! I confirm that when R is built with the fixed
version of GCC 12, the R testcase for MASS is fixed, it works with -O2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104668
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104639
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52774
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52774=edit
gcc12-pr104639.patch
Untested patch to optimize this in phiopt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105203
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It does not show up with any configuration I have tried, so clearly it needs
something more :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105203
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
It is not target-dependent and, besides x86_64, can be reproduced at least at
powerpc and aarch64 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105203
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Lol, this isn't a PowerPC issue at all. Please fill out the target field?
How can there be a difference in the number of uses only (and no difference
in actual uses!)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105203
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce this problem, what other flags does it need to reproduce?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98886
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105204
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Grabowski ---
Created attachment 52773
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52773=edit
example shared pointer implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105204
Bug ID: 105204
Summary: -Wuse-after-free=1 inconsistency with conditional free
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68605
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
That should have said 'years'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68605
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
If you look at the examples I cite you'll find they rarely, if ever, change
because of changes to GCC. This interface has been stable for year.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5522dec054cb940fe83661b96249aa12c54c1d77
commit r12-8060-g5522dec054cb940fe83661b96249aa12c54c1d77
Author: Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68605
--- Comment #4 from R. Diez ---
That is certainly a way to fix the crt0 nuisance. But it requires some specs
file black magic, so yet another thing to learn. And then you have to keep up
with GCC in case something changes around the specs files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99893
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99893
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2837450c4e8f5f241db5519977ab24c1f871258f
commit r11-9801-g2837450c4e8f5f241db5519977ab24c1f871258f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103885
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2837450c4e8f5f241db5519977ab24c1f871258f
commit r11-9801-g2837450c4e8f5f241db5519977ab24c1f871258f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68605
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] Wrong |[9/10 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:542c30dc4d220f6d2138e55d5fb8e1529339badf
commit r11-9800-g542c30dc4d220f6d2138e55d5fb8e1529339badf
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60160
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to R. Diez from comment #6)
> I am experimenting with a GCC 11.2 cross-compiler for bare-metal embedded
> software.
>
> There is no operating system, so no shared libraries or anything fancy. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60160
R. Diez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > Btw, a good example might be how we handle .vtable_map_vars for VTV which
> > uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Btw, a good example might be how we handle .vtable_map_vars for VTV which
> uses handle_vtv_comdat_section instead of switch_to_section. It might have
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
--- Comment #3 from Florian Albrechtskirchinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> If one defines instead say bool operator<(const foo, const foo);
> then the built-in candidate isn't considered because of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, a good example might be how we handle .vtable_map_vars for VTV which
uses handle_vtv_comdat_section instead of switch_to_section. It might have
more specialities but then it should serve as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5453bcc217ea4ac53a4ac277661d6ef0ccd425b
commit r12-8059-ge5453bcc217ea4ac53a4ac277661d6ef0ccd425b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105202
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't know.
https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct.def.default#1.1
says that defaulted comparison operator function doesn't have to be a special
member function, but then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105202
--- Comment #2 from Florian Albrechtskirchinger ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Is the code invalid, right?
I'd say so, yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> + const char *sname = "__patchable_function_entries";
> + const char *name = DECL_SECTION_NAME (current_function_decl);
> +
> + dot = strchr (name + 1, '.');
> + if (!dot)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Wrong|[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105202
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If one defines instead say bool operator<(const foo, const foo);
then the built-in candidate isn't considered because of
https://eel.is/c++draft/over.match.oper#3.3
But for the user operator<=> vs. built-in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105183
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed to increase the parameter specification in the test in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/592994.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So before pcom we have
[local count: 114863530]:
j_29 = k_28(D) + -1;
_1 = (long unsigned int) j_29;
_2 = _1 * 4;
_3 = x_30(D) + _2;
_4 = *_3;
_5 = _4 + 1;
*_3 = _5;
if (j_29 > 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100106
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #7)
> The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5155015ce57dc133e006f87fdf0237a5f259bebd
>
Just to note that on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105183
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I expected that the only call of bar in the testcase to be always
inlined everywhere but apparently it is not at least on i?86-*-* with
-mno-sse (and I expect the problem to be the same on the other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105203
Bug ID: 105203
Summary: '-fcompare-debug' failure w/ -O2 -ftracer -fPIC
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compare-debug-failure
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105183
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So it's predictive commoning that triggers the miscompile, it works with
-fno-predictive-commoning. predcom does
--- a-t.c.167t.dce6 2022-04-08 10:59:28.824746581 +0200
+++ a-t.c.168t.pcom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mingw32
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong code for C loop (GCC |[11/12 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105202
Bug ID: 105202
Summary: ICE: defaulted comparison operators for enumerated
types segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105149
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105030
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022, guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105030
>
> --- Comment #13 from HaoChen Gui ---
> Could we use the original alias set if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105182
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105201
Bug ID: 105201
Summary: cuLaunchKernel error with subsequent empty target
regions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105030
--- Comment #13 from HaoChen Gui ---
Could we use the original alias set if the tree code of 'atemp' is var_decl? Is
it safe? In which situation we shall use alias-set zero? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105187
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04ecadbeae51ac56f1a104b4858b6463b24dfaa2
commit r12-8058-g04ecadbeae51ac56f1a104b4858b6463b24dfaa2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
Bug ID: 105200
Summary: user-defined operator <=> for enumerated types is
ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102583
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 52771
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52771=edit
Pending patch for GCC13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105199
Bug ID: 105199
Summary: can't compile glslang on windows
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105149
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e2743687202c58a6553ae632ebbada3de38ad48
commit r12-8057-g6e2743687202c58a6553ae632ebbada3de38ad48
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105189
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e6597064b0c7eb93b8f720afc4aa970eefb0628
commit r12-8056-g5e6597064b0c7eb93b8f720afc4aa970eefb0628
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105030
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #11)
> I tested C source code with Ofast. The Ofast enables data store race. It
> should do store motion but it fails. The problem is on cselim pass. It does
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b789c44c6463452900f7b1e6d2a0af6567534bfc
commit r12-8054-gb789c44c6463452900f7b1e6d2a0af6567534bfc
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105030
--- Comment #11 from HaoChen Gui ---
I tested C source code with Ofast. The Ofast enables data store race. It should
do store motion but it fails. The problem is on cselim pass. It does
conditional store replacement. The 'atemp' is converted to
85 matches
Mail list logo
