https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94310
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The difference stems from the fact that in this test:
template
struct B { };
template
struct A : public B... {
using B::B...; // #1
using B::operator=...; // #2
};
int main() {}
when parsing B in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94656
Bug ID: 94656
Summary: target_clones on alias leads to segfault in the
compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #10 from Victor Mataré ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> The GNU libc has no-op stubs for several pthread functions. I think that is
> done so that single threaded programs which don't actually need those
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Bug ID: 94655
Summary: Implicit assignment operator triggers
stringop-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94628
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Nicholas Krause from comment #5)
> Shouldn't we also we testing for TYPE_ARGUMENT_PACK as well? Seems to be
> missing in the reported patch id and is not checked higher up the stack
> after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94628
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94654
Fred J. Tydeman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE |[8/9 Regression] ICE error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92233
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94654
--- Comment #2 from Fred J. Tydeman ---
If float is really promoted to double in this case, then why is the output
different? Seems to me that a float promoted to a double (case 2) should
produce
the same output as just a double (case a).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94654
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Two things:
1) float is prompted to double for var args in c.
2) printf is part of libc and gcc does not provide it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91849
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I think we could, the old diagnostic at least mentioned 'float'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91849
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94654
Bug ID: 94654
Summary: printf calls with floats
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66087
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Interestingly enough it fails in a similar manner with LRA, but I agree that
avoiding this earlier in the pipeline is preferable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The GNU libc has no-op stubs for several pthread functions. I think that is
done so that single threaded programs which don't actually need those functions
can still link to libraries that have references
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91829
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94653
Bug ID: 94653
Summary: gdc.test/fail_compilation/fail8631.d: valgrind error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94652
Bug ID: 94652
Summary: gdc.dg/ubsan/pr88957.d: valgrind error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94304
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92893, which changed state.
Bug 92893 Summary: [10 Regression] Unhelpful -Wstringop-overflow warning for a
trailing one-element array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87296
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94651
Bug ID: 94651
Summary: Missed peephole optimization: m >= POWER_OF_TWO || n
>= POWER_OF_TWO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #26 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #23)
> Ahh, I think this bug here is specific to __uint128 (with the C front end at
> least)
>
> The C translation of the C++ reproducer from comment 20:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94650
Bug ID: 94650
Summary: Missed x86-64 peephole optimization: x >= large power
of two
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94025
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1)
[..]
> I'm surprised that the Visual Studio compiler (I tested 2019) rejects the
> original example, this looks like a bug to me, especially since that
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 89550, which changed state.
Bug 89550 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] Spurious array-bounds warning when using
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ as a string_view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89550
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #25 from Avi Kivity ---
PR 94649.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94649
Bug ID: 94649
Summary: 16-byte aligned atomic_compare_exchange doesn not
generate cmpxcg16b on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #24 from Avi Kivity ---
I'll file a new PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94644
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #2)
> PR 94033 is also related to constructibity trait testing with an
> inaccessible constructor. Looks like the intrinsic depends on where it was
> evaluated.
Indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94644
Avi Kivity changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@cloudius-systems.com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #6)
> Isn't this ultimately a case of relying on the type information from that
> MEM expression in a place where it's not valid?
Yes, as I mentioned in comment #1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91912
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #23 from Florian Weimer ---
Ahh, I think this bug here is specific to __uint128 (with the C front end at
least)
The C translation of the C++ reproducer from comment 20:
struct a
{
long _Alignas(16) x;
long y;
};
_Bool
cmpxchg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
Victor Mataré changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mat...@fh-aachen.de
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #22 from Avi Kivity ---
Perhaps PR 84522 should be reopened and unmarked as a duplicate. While the
reproducer there is a C API, it is the C equivalent of
().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #21 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #20)
> Note that clang generates cmpxchg16b when the conditions are ripe:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/j9Whgh
I believe this is a different, C++-specific issue. The C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94310
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #20 from Avi Kivity ---
Note that clang generates cmpxchg16b when the conditions are ripe:
https://godbolt.org/z/j9Whgh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Isn't this ultimately a case of relying on the type information from that MEM
expression in a place where it's not valid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94647
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94396
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94420
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
--- Comment #12 from Rich Felker ---
There's some awful hand-written asm in libgcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S replacing
the standard libgcc2.c versions; that's the problem. But in order to use the
latter it would need to be compiled with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94264
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-18
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94143
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-18
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94439
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94439
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:baf3b9b2e5259558ef86bd62398e2ccecd7a4a4c
commit r10-7789-gbaf3b9b2e5259558ef86bd62398e2ccecd7a4a4c
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sat Apr 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94644
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94628
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3)
> Reduced rejects-valid testcase:
>
> int f(int, int);
> int f(int);
>
> template
> auto select(Args... args) -> decltype(f(args...))
> {
> if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94628
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94648
Bug ID: 94648
Summary: [OpenMP] DEVICE_HOST_FALLBACK when no actual device +
omp_target_alloc + omp_get_default_device
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94647
Bug ID: 94647
Summary: [10 Regression] wrong diagnostic with
-Werror=format-security
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94632
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92187
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92187
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e43b28ae7f09c0b7a30ab0dd976db761eeb1b0f9
commit r10-7786-ge43b28ae7f09c0b7a30ab0dd976db761eeb1b0f9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56247
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f83adb68ed9cef1fbd4c16447eb4e89676df9f62
commit r10-7787-gf83adb68ed9cef1fbd4c16447eb4e89676df9f62
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94632
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f83adb68ed9cef1fbd4c16447eb4e89676df9f62
commit r10-7787-gf83adb68ed9cef1fbd4c16447eb4e89676df9f62
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91970
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94646
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
72 matches
Mail list logo
