https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93121
Lyberta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lyberta at lyberta dot net
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93638
Lyberta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 93638, which changed state.
Bug 93638 Summary: [concepts] Dependent names in requires clause reported as
different types when function definition is not inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93638
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95588
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The priority is up to the GCC release managers but raising it won't make the
fix available before 10.2 (except on trunk). Regardless, I should have a patch
soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95559
--- Comment #3 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #2)
> $g++-8 test.cc ; ./a.out
> 0
Here is
> $g++-8 bug.cc ; ./a.out
> 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95559
--- Comment #2 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I can't find a version of GCC that compiled this.
Hi, so sorry I might use the wrong test case. Please try this case bug.cc
instead
#include
int main(){
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95564
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95559
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95614
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95620
Bug ID: 95620
Summary: [10/11 Regression] relocation truncated to fit:
R_X86_64_PC32 against `.bss'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95609
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #0)
> I would assume that the ABI ship has sailed, as usual
Nope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95610
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC fails to get global |bogus error: "global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95345
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95345
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57ae358584f402145bad6fede8c539a225f90966
commit r10-8266-g57ae358584f402145bad6fede8c539a225f90966
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93638
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95619
Bug ID: 95619
Summary: apparently in-bounds subscript in -Warray-bounds
message
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95617
--- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer ---
oops, thought I had included that:
wn-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
-I/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95618
Bug ID: 95618
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in remap_type_1, at
tree-inline.c:607
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95617
Bug ID: 95617
Summary: [11 regression] many excess errors starting with
r11-1117
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:006f28aefeb3be575239beddc7febe56dff463a2
commit r11-1129-g006f28aefeb3be575239beddc7febe56dff463a2
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77103685ff4b50b3c4d7ee76688bdf452acc82c7
commit r11-1127-g77103685ff4b50b3c4d7ee76688bdf452acc82c7
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95588
--- Comment #1 from Nick Desaulniers ---
In https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41467#c4, the code owner for Clang
seems to indicate that we could move the warnings for narrowing prints (ie.
printing an `int` with `%hh`) to a new warning flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95616
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95615
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95616
Bug ID: 95616
Summary: [coroutines] coroutines with potentially-throwing
'co_await promise.final_suspend()' expressions should
be ill-formed
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95615
Bug ID: 95615
Summary: [coroutines] Coroutine frame and promise is leaked if
exception thrown from promise.initial_suspend()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85270
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95614
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95614
Bug ID: 95614
Summary: ICE in build_field, at fortran/trans-common.c:301
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
Bug ID: 95613
Summary: ICE in main_block_label, at tree-cfg.c:1455
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95612
Bug ID: 95612
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_check_pointer_assign,
at fortran/expr.c:4274
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95611
Bug ID: 95611
Summary: ICE in access_attr_decl, at fortran/decl.c:9075
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245
--- Comment #5 from G. Steinmetz ---
A few more disrupted cases :
$ cat z03.f90
select type (n%&
$ cat z04.f90
select type (n%m&
$ cat z05.f90
select type (n(
$ cat z06.f90
select type (n(&
$ cat z07.f90
select type (n(m
$ cat z08.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95610
Bug ID: 95610
Summary: GCC fails to get global variable via "::" in class
specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #6)
> I tried the patch and it allowed me to build gcc on a power7 system.
but AFAIU the discussion - the builtin has the wrong signature (and needs to be
fixed)?
or did
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94377
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
--- Comment #6 from Bill Seurer ---
I tried the patch and it allowed me to build gcc on a power7 system.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95609
Bug ID: 95609
Summary: span could have better layout
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95552
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef41587df9839d1dfc77dbc48a0830e42b36626e
commit r11-1122-gef41587df9839d1dfc77dbc48a0830e42b36626e
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95608
Bug ID: 95608
Summary: c++20 wrong code for defaulted equality comparison on
array member variables
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95607
Bug ID: 95607
Summary: Inconsistent treating of default argument
instantiation as immediate context
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95599
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Lewis Baker from comment #3)
> Also, I'm not sure why GCC is evaluating the second operand to operator,()
> first and why it is constructing resource{1} _after_ the coroutine has
> suspended.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95599
--- Comment #3 from Lewis Baker ---
I don't think that whether or not the awaitables or operands to co_yield are
captured by reference / aliased should play into the sequencing of calls to the
destructor.
The destructors of temporaries should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95469
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95567
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
To follow up on this, it's not the operator<=> being virtual that's significant
but rather the class itself being polymorphic. This exhibits the same behavior:
#include
struct B {
B(int i) : i(i) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95215
--- Comment #2 from John Donners ---
thanks for reviewing this. Indeed, the compiler bug does not occur when using
the intelmicemul target:
gfortran -foffload=x86_64-intelmicemul-linux-gnu -g -fopenmp -O3 bla.f90
/lib/../lib64/crt1.o: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95347
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95138
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71579
kuzniar95 at o2 dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kuzniar95 at o2 dot pl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95215
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95606
Bug ID: 95606
Summary: [10/11 regression] conflicts with
std::is_constructible
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95056
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94235
Pedro Alves changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95596
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
gcc/cp/typeck.c does:
if (cxx_dialect >= cxx11)
pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wwrite_strings,
"ISO C++ forbids converting a string constant to %qT",
totype);
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95596
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93979
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #5 from gcc at pkh dot me ---
I'd like to point out that this regression impacts badly a production app.
We're using this pattern to compare an input vector of floats to a vector of
zeros, but the comparison always returns 0 now,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95056
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95154
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ia64-*-*,*-*-darwin*|ia64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95605
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
dtrace -G calls gcc to generate the .o file, and you can use the CC and CFLAGS
environment vars to inject the options you need. Ugly, but you can avoid that
by passing the appropriate options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81058
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
don't know if it helps, but with -Wshadow=compatible-local
the regression begins probably earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95604
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #2)
> Really? The documentation states:
>
> The macro "__CET__" is defined when -fcf-protection is used.
>
> so it's a preprocessor option as well?
__CET__ check isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95604
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
Really? The documentation states:
The macro "__CET__" is defined when -fcf-protection is used.
so it's a preprocessor option as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95605
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95604
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #0)
> Building the example from PR93966 with the -fcf-protection flag in the
> compile step, but not in the link step, I get the error triggered by the -z
> option.
>
> $
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95605
Bug ID: 95605
Summary: LTO and object files generated by dtrace -G
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95604
Bug ID: 95604
Summary: LTO doesn't pick up -fcf-protection flag for the link
step
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95560
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|x86_64-w64-mingw32 |
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95603
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Thanks, all the rounds with asking at gcc-help, waiting for reply, and even
recompiling this morning took too much time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95603
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95603
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Didn't r11-1083-g942a384ef9f38777df25b2bfa421ce6a07553a98 fix this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95502
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95603
Bug ID: 95603
Summary: [11 Regression] sanitizer_linux.cpp:1880:16: error:
missing terminating ' character
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95569
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95570
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Yeah, that was for vector components. Not that I like it much. Can
> the middle-end assume that the Ada boolean types only contain 0 or 1
> or are there other values that are supposed to be well-defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95602
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95365
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
All right, I can live with the changed names of the files..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95365
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:452283bd060eb9bae41199b4b5e7266155d40e12
commit r11-1115-g452283bd060eb9bae41199b4b5e7266155d40e12
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:862b9b225fba6cf3c63234206f2dbc47f1ab5350
commit r11-1114-g862b9b225fba6cf3c63234206f2dbc47f1ab5350
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
