https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
...which should also fix Bug 96241 so these in fact are duplicates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
This ought to fix it, though it's completely untested:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -3661,6 +3661,10 @@ cxx_eval_array_reference (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree
t,
{
tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
And that also means that this:
enum E : int { F };
struct X {
E e{F};
};
constexpr X x[1]{};
constexpr auto
foo ()
{
return x[0].e;
}
constexpr auto a = foo ();
started to ICE earlier, since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
--- Comment #2 from Yoshinori Sato ---
Since 0x296318e8 is data, we need to investigate where we jumped.
The backtrace looks normal, so I think you're getting anomalous jumps when
optimizing long_richcompare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
A test without a lambda that ICEs with -std=c++14 too:
enum E : int { F };
struct X {
E e{F};
};
constexpr X x[1];
auto
foo ()
{
return x[0].e;
}
Note that we don't ICE if the X's member is changed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97434
Bug ID: 97434
Summary: Missed dead code optimization from data flow analysis
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
--- Comment #1 from Rich Felker ---
Do you have a complete disassembly of the function it crashed in and register
dump at the point of crash? That would help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97433
Bug ID: 97433
Summary: C++20 Coroutines, Unexpected reordering of
await_resume, return_value and yield_value
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97432
--- Comment #1 from Ray Zhang ---
Providing more context with the first example (also applies for the rest):
1) // pointer to array - works in clang (trunk),
// works in gcc (trunk)
reinterpret_cast(x);
T1: const pointer to const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97432
Bug ID: 97432
Summary: Casting away constness in the drafts [conv.qual] a
cv-decomposition exists in the following examples but
fails in gcc
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
Bug ID: 97431
Summary: [SH] Python crashes with 'Segmentation fault with
-finline-small-functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[10/11 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
Bug ID: 97430
Summary: internal compiler error: in verify_ctor_sanity, at
cp/constexpr.c:3884
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #14 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #13)
> https://godbolt.org/z/fqGrz1
>
> After this patch, the assembly generated is much better now. However, it
> still contains many optimization problems.
>
> The problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #13 from fdlbxtqi ---
https://godbolt.org/z/fqGrz1
After this patch, the assembly generated is much better now. However, it still
contains many optimization problems.
The problem is the code like this.
Let's just walk through the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97391
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 97391, which changed state.
Bug 97391 Summary: [11 Regression] bogus -Warray-bounds accessing a
multidimensional array parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97391
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97391
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14d83c6f584c321989b43526dc9437de4381aa47
commit r11-3901-g14d83c6f584c321989b43526dc9437de4381aa47
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97413
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97413
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34efa5c2a84a8c7c7beb855dec24a321eebcbd6b
commit r11-3900-g34efa5c2a84a8c7c7beb855dec24a321eebcbd6b
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #25 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #21)
> Maybe gcc compiling itself with the analyzer might find some bugs, too.
I tried this and all I found were AFAIK false positives.
Perhaps someone with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92422
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #24 from David Malcolm ---
As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556203.html
I was able to bootstrap using the method described in comment #0, albeit taking
7 hours (compared to the 45 minutes it normally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
Bug 93388 depends on bug 93723, which changed state.
Bug 93723 Summary: ICEs building ada with -fanalyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97412
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97429
Bug ID: 97429
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a
pointer to array
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61a43de58cb6de7212a622060500ad0a0fd94fae
commit r11-3896-g61a43de58cb6de7212a622060500ad0a0fd94fae
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12b267cc606a48a2fef809189c35573c4a51d3a5
commit r11-3895-g12b267cc606a48a2fef809189c35573c4a51d3a5
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:974e3975c5bd14ee8817f892532d1e55492227df
commit r11-3894-g974e3975c5bd14ee8817f892532d1e55492227df
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
--- Comment #13 from Jiri Olsa ---
hi,
any update on the fix? I'm seeing the bug now in fedora 32 with:
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 10.2.1 20201005 (Red Hat 10.2.1-5)
thanks,
jirka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> > > This doesn't look valid to me. In
> > >
> > > [x...] {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:270c5a982ccb4ef83bd9ad37d39cf47461acb55a
commit r11-3893-g270c5a982ccb4ef83bd9ad37d39cf47461acb55a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
Bug ID: 97428
Summary: -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex
arrays, but horrible one step above the basic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> This doesn't look valid to me. In
>
> [x...] { x; }...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358#c3 is what they actually
have (not sure if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] aarch64: |aarch64: Wrong code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97427
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97427
Bug ID: 97427
Summary: constexpr destructor for const object incorrectly
rejected as modifying const object
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
This doesn't look valid to me. In
[x...] { x; }...
we capture the entire pack, but then try to use only a single element. This
should be rejected because the use of x in the lambda body is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93103603fd66a9fcf3ea2d8b52657e4b2496f544
commit r11-3891-g93103603fd66a9fcf3ea2d8b52657e4b2496f544
Author: Sunil K Pandey
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If what clang++ does with the copy ctors is right, then what firefox does is
inefficient and
[aSpecialValueMappers](const SpecialConstant& aSpecialValue) {
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85901
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=97358
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
Also, I wonder what the final value of copy_counter should be in the below
testcase (assuming it's valid):
static int copy_counter;
struct S {
S() = default;
S(const S&) { ++copy_counter; }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Petr Sumbera from comment #5)
> > Is there any workaround for this issue?
>
> I guess replacing that
> [aSpecialValueMappers...](const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78198b6021a9695054dab039340202170b88423c
commit r11-3889-g78198b6021a9695054dab039340202170b88423c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89161
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
This should be resolved once the sprintf + strlen pass is converted to the new
Ranger implementation sometime in the coming weeks (hopefully).
In the meantime, changing the controlling expression in the if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97426
Bug ID: 97426
Summary: [11 regression] new test case gcc.dg/ipa/modref-1.c
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97425
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
In addition to the bounds in the array type the subscript in some of the
warnings issued for array parameters isn't right.
$ cat z.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -fdump-tree-vrp1=/dev/stdout z.c
void f (void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97425
Bug ID: 97425
Summary: bogus array bounds in -Warray-bounds for a function
array parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71424
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tangyixuan at mail dot
dlut.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97422
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
Indeed, Martin Sebor has suggested that it would have to be coupled with
__builtin_warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01015.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #12 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #11)
> The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06bec55e80d98419121f3998d98d969990a75b0b
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96813
Bug 96813 depends on bug 96818, which changed state.
Bug 96818 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 at -O
since r11-2883
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96822
Bug 96822 depends on bug 96818, which changed state.
Bug 96818 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 at -O
since r11-2883
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Ah...it can be closed.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 17:58 jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
>
> --- Comment #10 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
Bug ID: 97424
Summary: Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Is this bug still "WAITING" for something?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod ---
in particular:
_2 = (int) c_8;
_3 = _2 * 148372120;
_4 = a.0_1 / _3;
if (_4 != 0)
we do not wind back thru divides at the moment (unless they are exact divides)
so when processing the false edge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Petr Sumbera from comment #5)
> Is there any workaround for this issue?
I guess replacing that
[aSpecialValueMappers...](const SpecialConstant& aSpecialValue) {
with
[=](const SpecialConstant&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97378
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
>
>
>
> The division by zero was product of various transformations. Basically we
> know that a.0_1 is 0, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #5 from Petr Sumbera ---
Is there any workaround for this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97423
--- Comment #2 from Petr Sumbera ---
Created attachment 49373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49373=edit
test case
Just for record. I have tried to prepare test case. Attached is preprocessed
test case. Following command
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06bec55e80d98419121f3998d98d969990a75b0b
commit r11-3882-g06bec55e80d98419121f3998d98d969990a75b0b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sumbera at volny dot cz
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97423
Bug ID: 97423
Summary: internal compiler error in gcc-10.2.0/gcc/toplev.c:328
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97396
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
There is no need to cache non-logical operands. Processing a relational such as
<,>,<=,>= is a linear process, and therefore we never needed to cache them.
&& and || is exponential as we have to evaluate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97396
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a121715bcab6e8980768d142b9781c45821130ac
commit r11-3880-ga121715bcab6e8980768d142b9781c45821130ac
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96759
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kito at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
> So maybe try bisecting/reproducing with -fno-strict-aliasing?
Ah, yes, I can reproduce before that revision with -fno-strict-aliasing. I'll
re-bisect, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It was https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01260.html with
relevant followups from Eric in May.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #5 from Steve Fink ---
Created attachment 49372
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49372=edit
backtrace of crash
Note that the invalid_nonstatic_memfn_p in the attached crash stack seems
bogus. Here's a backtrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So maybe try bisecting/reproducing with -fno-strict-aliasing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #4 from Steve Fink ---
Created attachment 49371
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49371=edit
crash stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #3 from Steve Fink ---
This invokes decl_as_string(decl, TFF_DECL_SPECIFIERS | TFF_CHASE_TYPEDEF)
TREE_CODE(decl) is FUNCTION_DECL.
dump_function_decl(decl) is attempting to render the return type of the
function. It's in a local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97422
Bug ID: 97422
Summary: gcc rejects 'std::initializer_list' when instantiating
with a list
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Bug ID: 97421
Summary: [10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code with -O2
-fmodulo-sched since r10-1318-ga7e8a46
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::find_if has existed since C++98.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4aa9742252ea419947fe32ff64c7546c92286b96
commit r11-3875-g4aa9742252ea419947fe32ff64c7546c92286b96
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
Bug ID: 97420
Summary: error: no matching function for call to 'find_if'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #2 from Steve Fink ---
Created attachment 49370
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49370=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #1 from Steve Fink ---
Created attachment 49369
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49369=edit
minimized C++ source
C++ source that only includes .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
Bug ID: 97419
Summary: crash in decl_as_string(TFF_DECL_SPECIFIERS |
TFF_CHASE_TYPEDEF) from plugin using std::declval()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, it does if I spell the environment variable correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
