https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
YunQiang Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #22 from gagan sidhu (broly) ---
yes it’s fixed sorry.
i foolishly forgot to set the architecture when installing the headers, which
caused the alleged problems.
after i did that, it was completely fixed.
hat tip to the serb on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
YunQiang Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||syq at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #20 from gagan sidhu (broly) ---
my apologies, i should open a new ticket if this is indeed an error.
but it may be my fault for not specifying the ARCH parameter when installing
the linux headers prior to starting the toolchain.
rom
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:174:
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:986:29:
> error: static assertion failed
> 986 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_SIZEBITS == _IOC_SIZEBITS);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #18 from gagan sidhu (broly) ---
hi,
i wanted to correct an inaccuracy in my previous comment, as i needed to build
a MIPS64 multilib toolchain today and ran into the same problem.
the solution is, as my friend of chinese origin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #17 from gagan sidhu (broly) ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to gagan sidhu (broly) from comment #15)
>
> > and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0
>
> Please don't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to gagan sidhu (broly) from comment #15)
> and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0
Please don't use this. I've already said why this is not correct in previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
gagan sidhu (broly) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||broly at mac dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Chris Packham from comment #13)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > Please provide info about how libsanitizer end up building with GCC 11.3 and
> > MIPS64 (such a combination is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #13 from Chris Packham ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> Please provide info about how libsanitizer end up building with GCC 11.3 and
> MIPS64 (such a combination is not supported and libsanitizer should not be
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Removing my "fix" resolves the issue for GCC 12 but I suspect something like
> the suggestion from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614#c7
> might resolve the issue properly.
I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||immoloism at googlemail dot com
---
/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:21:
[ERROR]
/home/bagas/cross/workdir/mips64-unknown/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38:
error: static assertion failed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> The GCC divergence comes from
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/
> 9f943b2446f2d0a345bbf9b4be3d3a4316372270
(Why refer to gcc commits through some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #5 from Chris Packham ---
Upstream issue raised https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55499 I still
think there's some work on the GCC side required as even without this specific
issue things have diverged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Please make the review request to upstream first:
https://reviews.llvm.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #3 from Chris Packham ---
It looks like upstream has moved to FIRST_32_SECOND_64(160, 216) somewhere
along the line. According to my reading of the linux source code this is wrong
for both bitnesses now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #2 from Chris Packham ---
Created attachment 52984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52984=edit
Set struct_kernel_stat_sz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
Bug ID: 105614
Summary: mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38:
error: static assertion failed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Bug 89370 would really help simplify this diagnostic.
The last three lines would be:
.../src/NCPkgFilterPattern.cc:343:28: required from here
/usr/include/c++/11/bits/stl_tree.h:770:8: error: static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The template argument '_Compare = paircmp' shows the type user as the
comparison object.
So paircmp::operator() needs to be const.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The static assert was added intentionally, the comparison function used with
the container must have a const-qualified operator().
I would check that in the nurses code first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 50656
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50656=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100226
Bug ID: 100226
Summary: [11/12 Regression] c++/11/bits/stl_tree.h:770:8:
error: static assertion failed: comparison object must
be invocable as const
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
I am not an epiphany expert. I just noticed this while testing the GCC builds
for RTEMS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789
Bug ID: 88789
Summary: epiphany: memory_resource.cc:235:62: error: static
assertion failed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Nov 12 15:25:40 2018
New Revision: 266032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266032=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87963 fix build for 64-bit mingw
PR libstdc++/87963
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963
Bug ID: 87963
Summary: libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/memory_resource.cc:515:31:
error: static assertion failed for mingw-w64 target
since r265853
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86977
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to João Neto from comment #2)
> Hi Jonathan! Thanks for the quick reply!
>
> Two follow-up questions:
>
> (1) Shouldn't it be also flagged as an error in `gcc-6` and `gcc-7` with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86977
--- Comment #3 from João Neto ---
>
> (2) How can I reliably find the node-type allocated by the map if I'd want
> to use `-std=c++17`? Isn't it implementation-defined?
>
Please ignore my stupidity. c++17 has a `node_type`
The other one I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86977
--- Comment #2 from João Neto ---
Hi Jonathan! Thanks for the quick reply!
Two follow-up questions:
(1) Shouldn't it be also flagged as an error in `gcc-6` and `gcc-7` with
`-std=c++17`?
(2) How can I reliably find the node-type allocated by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86977
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86977
Bug ID: 86977
Summary: [g++ 8.1.0-5ubuntu1~14.04] error: static assertion
failed: unordered container must have the same
value_type as its allocator
Product: gcc
From a diagnostics point-of-view, neither version is quoted:
c/c-parser.c: error_at (assert_loc, "static assertion failed: %E", string);
cp/semantics.c: error ("static assertion failed: %s",
To be "quoted", it would need to use either %q or %<%>. Note t
On 13/07/16 14:26, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
I had recently noticed that given:
#ifndef __cplusplus /* C */
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
#else /* C++ */
static_assert(0, "foo");
#endif
..., for C we diagnose:
[...]:2:1: error: static as
On 07/13/2016 07:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
I had recently noticed that given:
#ifndef __cplusplus /* C */
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
#else /* C++ */
static_assert(0, "foo");
#endif
..., for C we diagnose:
[...]:2:1: error: static as
Hi!
I had recently noticed that given:
#ifndef __cplusplus /* C */
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
#else /* C++ */
static_assert(0, "foo");
#endif
..., for C we diagnose:
[...]:2:1: error: static assertion failed: "foo&quo
50 matches
Mail list logo
