https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
Bug ID: 93244
Summary: std::filesystem::path::generic_string doesn't convert
the first slash on Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93048
--- Comment #7 from Pilar Latiesa ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> This might already been fixed.
The testcases, as well as the codebase from which they were reduced, compile
fine now.
Shall I change the PR status to resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think this is actually a regression in 4.5 and later relative to 4.4.
It can be demonstrated in older versions using a different test, with
-std=c99 -pedantic-errors.
#include
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think this is a bug. The expression meets all the requirements for
integer constant expressions (the unevaluated part of the expression has
only permitted operands and casts, much like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93243
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
> The diffs in the source code are:
> #if CASE & 1
> #define CMP(a, b) ((a) < (b))
> #else
> #define CMP(a, b) (((a) - (b)) < 0)
> #endiF
>
(a) < (b) is not equal to ((a) - (b) < 0)
Compiler will trait them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47642=edit
fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93234
--- Comment #2 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
Created attachment 47641
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47641=edit
NAMELIST dumper of all INQUIRE parameters
I did not see anything else undefined. I had to chop it down
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The issue comes from is 0 ? expression : 1 ; Does expression need to be an
constant expresison and be evaluated?
6.6/10 allows applies here too:
An implementation may accept other forms of constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93234
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93243
Leo Yuriev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
Target|x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93243
Bug ID: 93243
Summary: misoptimization: minor changes of the code leads
change up to +/- 30% performance on x86_64, -Os faster
than -Ofast/O2/O3
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93242
Bug ID: 93242
Summary: [MIPS] patchable-function-entry broken
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=1f4b95dfdcdc4ed7c6952285d494983103b678b8
commit r9-8120-g1f4b95dfdcdc4ed7c6952285d494983103b678b8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61752
Jon Turney changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
Stephan Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93241
Bug ID: 93241
Summary: _Bool casts in dead branches of integer constant
expressions cause undesirable warnings under -pedantic
iff the dead branch contains overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93240
Roman Lebedev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93240
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Or you suggesting GCC should add it?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D4635
Why not use __builtin_assume_aligned instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87967
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code:
template void c(b d) { d >>= a * 4; }
template void g(e, f) {
char h;
c<1>(h);
}
int i;
void j() { g(j, i); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93240
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87967
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93240
Bug ID: 93240
Summary: [frontend] 'align_value' attribute not honored to
variables in types
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93239
Bug ID: 93239
Summary: Enhancement: allow unevaluated statement expressions
at filescope
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93238
Bug ID: 93238
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected
integer_cst, have mult_expr in to_wide, at tree.h:5855
since g:337ea6b216afd412
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93237
Bug ID: 93237
Summary: vector defined using inserts is not converted into
constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92192
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92949
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92769
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > >Linux system calls and Linux VDSO calls
> >
> > System calls, I can understand But why is it required by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92769
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> >Linux system calls and Linux VDSO calls
>
> System calls, I can understand But why is it required by VDSO calls too?
> That seems backwards and also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92665
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
34 matches
Mail list logo
