https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110681
Bug ID: 110681
Summary: bogus warning -Wreturn-type for lambda in tparam list
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110680
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||107430
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110680
Bug ID: 110680
Summary: erroneous error "non-template type 'C' used as a
template"
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95923
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> So there are some patterns for non boolean as for boolean values ~(a^b) is
> converted to a==b so we need to support the == case for these:
The non-boolean ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95923
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
So there are some patterns for non boolean as for boolean values ~(a^b) is
converted to a==b so we need to support the == case for these:
```
/* (a | b) & ~(a ^ b) --> a & b */
(simplify
(bit_and:c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109753
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109753
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc.gnu.org at aryanc403 dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110675
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-15
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110679
Bug ID: 110679
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity with countr_zero
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110678
Bug ID: 110678
Summary: UBSAN error: signed integer overflow:
249946095246429448 * 100 cannot be represented in type
'long int' when compiling pr103513.c
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110677
Bug ID: 110677
Summary: UBSAN error: load of value 1818451807, which is not a
valid value for type 'expr_t' when compiling
pr49213.f90
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110653
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #11)
> Yes, this works.
Great, thanks.
> hppa64-hpux does not have have strtof. Could std::stof be implemented using
> strtod in this case?
Maybe something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110586
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51770
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 0
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=0=edit
Patch which will fix this
There are a few more tweaks I would like to make but I thought I post a first
pass patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110676
--- Comment #3 from nrk at disroot dot org ---
Oops, forgot about https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107395.
But that bug was for missed warning opportunity, while this one is about ASan.
So I suppose both the bugs can coexist.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|builtin optimization|strlen of array[1] should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110676
Bug ID: 110676
Summary: builtin optimization prevents ASan from detecting OOB
reads
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110675
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Clearly related to PR109753, but I'm not sure if it's OK to just mark it as a
dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|96% pr28071.c compile time |[14 regression] 96%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59172
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||60679
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||83426
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110675
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||110334
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110653
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-07-14 5:58 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110653
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> And this should fix it:
>
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110524
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110441
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110441
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0de651db45c758f54e9ed917069795a3835499de
commit r14-2539-g0de651db45c758f54e9ed917069795a3835499de
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110524
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97ceaa110e1607ec8f4f1223200868e1642f3cc7
commit r14-2538-g97ceaa110e1607ec8f4f1223200868e1642f3cc7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110675
Bug ID: 110675
Summary: Compilation fails for a simple C++ program
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
lid use of incomplete type 'struct
std::tuple_element<0, u>'
11 | auto [a] = u{};
| ^
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20230715/include/c++/14.0.0/bits/stl_pair.h:62,
from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20230715/include/c++/14.0.0/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin ---
rs6000_pass_by_reference returns true with -m32, and false with -m64.
So the second argument is passed by reference with -m32, and by value with
-m64.
So the code in val looks right, it is the code in p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59178
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #75 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks fixed in GCC 11+; I tried x86_64, i686, powerpc (powerpc-spe is no
longer supported).
For 32bit powerpc we get:
tuned_STREAM_Copy:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
lis 9,.LANCHOR0@ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 06:15:44AM +, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
>
> --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-01-15 20:37:58 |2023-7-15
--- Comment #36 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> Updating known-to-work/known to fail version.
>
> Paul/Steve: do you want to assign this PR to one of you?
I am of two minds as to whether or not to backport the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110235
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109880
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Has this been fixed with the commit?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Has this been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110043
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
More simplified testcase:
```
__int128 g_116_1;
extern char g_521[][8];
void func_24() {
if (g_116_1 >= 0)
g_521[g_116_1][g_116_1] &= 0;
}
```
I think this ICEs with types which >= sizeof(offset_int)
52 matches
Mail list logo
