https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106992
Bug ID: 106992
Summary: aarch64: Unexpected maybe-uninitialized warning when
compiling fdlibm
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104482
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105485
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104482
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a71881d05d3ec3e56492fff0197f88dcf4d9dbc
commit r12-8778-g1a71881d05d3ec3e56492fff0197f88dcf4d9dbc
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105485
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:104864f99c07f87b53c7f45c50a1991b21249489
commit r12-8777-g104864f99c07f87b53c7f45c50a1991b21249489
Author: Kewen.Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87628
--- Comment #4 from AK ---
Seems like clang now added the check:
$ clang++ -Oz -fno-exceptions
if_delete(char*): # @if_delete(char*)
testrdi, rdi
jne operator delete(void*)@PLT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106991
Bug ID: 106991
Summary: new+delete pair not optimized by g++ at -O3 but
optimized at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87628
--- Comment #3 from AK ---
Still happening with gcc trunk.
https://godbolt.org/z/5K94665GK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106955
--- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Take a look please:
> https://godbolt.org/z/14YYhb8oe
OK, then I cannot reduce it at all. My local copy of g++ accepts both this
version and the one I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106988
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106989
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The DSE happens but only at the RTL level
Is it a good idea to do data-ref in DSE and remove the first redundant store?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106989
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The DSE happens but only at the RTL level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106989
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
/app/example.cpp:20:25: note: Detected interleaving store a[i_27] and a[i_27]
/app/example.cpp:20:25: note: Queuing group with duplicate access for fixup
/app/example.cpp:20:25: note: zero step in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
--- Comment #7 from Hui Peng Hu ---
I was trying to call libjpeg to decode images inside a generator. A snippet of
code that I found online used setjmp/longjmp for error handling, hence I ran
into this issue. Given that the longjmp is called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106784
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can certainly change the struct name.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106989
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
> real_t* __restrict__ xx;
> real_t* yy;
> real_t s243(void)
> {
> for (int nl = 0; nl < iterations; nl++) {
> for (int i = 0; i < LEN_1D-1; i++) {
> a[i] = b[i] + c[i ] * d[i];
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106990
Bug ID: 106990
Summary: Missing TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED checks in match.pd
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106989
Bug ID: 106989
Summary: GCC fail to vectorize and clang succeed
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It cannot be -mcpu=power8, that cannot generate isel. -mcpu=power9 comes
closer, but I still do not see exactly the same output, and crucially not
the strange store either.
What the what.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106784
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
FWIW, I notice that include/std/type_traits implements struct
__is_nothrow_convertible so I think its name has to change, otherwise it would
clash with this new built-in.
Though, it seems that clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104143
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59f6dea963b5f7a6b9ced325200359b4831e7fa7
commit r13-2748-g59f6dea963b5f7a6b9ced325200359b4831e7fa7
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5976fbf9d5dd9542fcb82eebb2185886fd52d000
commit r13-2747-g5976fbf9d5dd9542fcb82eebb2185886fd52d000
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106984
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE with|[13 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106980
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106985
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106988
Bug ID: 106988
Summary: subscripting a string literal is not an integer
constant expression but __builtin_strlen is
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106985
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8dbb15bc2d019488240c1e69d93121b0347ac092
commit r13-2746-g8dbb15bc2d019488240c1e69d93121b0347ac092
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106985
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106983
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=100132
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be60aa5b608b5f09fadfeff852a46589ac311a42
commit r13-2743-gbe60aa5b608b5f09fadfeff852a46589ac311a42
Author: José Rui Faustino de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106983
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106983
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106961
--- Comment #5 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I used the feedback app to submit FB11552589; as a first-timer I’m unsure
whether I’ve done it right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Compiles with scalars :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
! integer, parameter :: a = 31
integer, parameter :: b = 32
integer, parameter :: c = 33
! print *, 2**a
print *, 2**b
print *, 2**c
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
Bug ID: 106987
Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in simplify_intrinsic_op,
at fortran/expr.cc:1305
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10d6109fe183d984a0377a7afe2854a0d794ebeb
commit r13-2741-g10d6109fe183d984a0377a7afe2854a0d794ebeb
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106986
Bug ID: 106986
Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in
simplify_findloc_nodim, at fortran/simplify.cc:5675
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106985
Bug ID: 106985
Summary: ICE in gfc_simplify_expr, at fortran/expr.cc:2290
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106984
Bug ID: 106984
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE with -fsanitize=thread :
verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106983
Bug ID: 106983
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
type_build_dtor_call, at cp/class.cc:5794
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106982
Bug ID: 106982
Summary: [OpenACC] ICE incorrect sharing of tree nodes with
nested reduction / .GOACC_REDUCTION
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
The embedded support is new, so please try using the latest master snapshots we
provide :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106981
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106981
Bug ID: 106981
Summary: [OpenMP] ICE in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 with
'#pragma acc atomic capture'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #16 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
> it with sarcasm
I started with sarcasm because you restart this thread with some doubtful
benchmarks without code for them.
I think it's very disrespectfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #15 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
> If you have an atomic counter and want to signal when it has been
> incremented, you cannot tell from the previous value whether another thread
> is waiting.
I wrote it example.
Do you talk about like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106980
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106980
Bug ID: 106980
Summary: Concept on a variadig template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Mkkt Bkkt from comment #12)
> First of, I was a toxic, sorry.
> But you start this first, maybe it's allowed for maintainer, I don't know.
No, you started it with sarcasm and disparaging
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #13 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
example of simple mutex pseudocode that don't need call notify every unlock:
Same possible for other cases, if it doesn't please share example for me
```
int kUnlocked = 0;
int kLocked = 1;
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
--- Comment #2 from rob at lightmatter dot co ---
What is the solution for embedded systems using earlier versions of GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106636
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d812e8cb2a920fd75768e16ca8ded59ad93c172f
commit r13-2740-gd812e8cb2a920fd75768e16ca8ded59ad93c172f
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106979
Bug ID: 106979
Summary: Gcov tutorial for Freestanding Environments failing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Nobody has proposed any patches yet, but I imagine we'd end up treating
-mcpu=iwmmxt[2] in the same way as -mcpu=xscale. Similarly for
-march=iwmmxt[2].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
ACK, but what we're using in this configuration is --with-cpu=iwmmxt. I'm a bit
confused between it being a CPU type, and it being just a vector extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #12 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
First of, I was a toxic, sorry.
But you start this first, maybe it's allowed for maintainer, I don't know.
But I still waiting code of benchmarks.
Also I want to see example of usage when we notify atomic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106972
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I don't think we're talking about removing support for the CPU, just support
for the iwmmxt extension. That is, you can still use it as an Arm cpu, but
without the vector engine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
abulafia:~/bld/t/gcc$ cat a.c
int script_obj_as_number_obj, script_obj_as_number_obj_0_0;
double script_obj_as_number() {
if (script_obj_as_number_obj)
return script_obj_as_number_obj_0_0;
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
I am not too sure that what I found is the same as the original bug report.
Reduced C code is:
int script_obj_as_number_obj, script_obj_as_number_obj_0_0;
double script_obj_as_number() {
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106978
Ben Fulton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Rodgers ---
(In reply to Mkkt Bkkt from comment #9)
> Why do you think you smarter than msvc stl, libc++, boost::atomic developers?
>
> Maybe it's about your "I"?
I should ignore this (see jwakely's response), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
*** Bug 106970 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Aldy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please try to be civil, or your requests will simply be ignored.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 53596
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53596=edit
another patch in testing
This one may be needed as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106978
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ben Fulton from comment #0)
> 502:5: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction
This is not a GCC bug, it means your gcc executables were compiled for a
different CPU and use instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106967
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 53595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53595=edit
patch in testing
This was painful. I had audit all the relational code to make sure we're
handling NANs before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106969
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Fixed on trunk so far. I'll backport to the release branches soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106794
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106914
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
commit r13-2738-g1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106491
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bf5a704d36243c4c04b17a9408ebe881beb0051
commit r13-2739-g6bf5a704d36243c4c04b17a9408ebe881beb0051
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106794
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
commit r13-2738-g1005c89431cc78a68762643e1bc7249c3959927e
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #9 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
Why do you think you smarter than msvc stl, libc++, boost::atomic developers?
Maybe it's about your "I"?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106978
Bug ID: 106978
Summary: Internal compiler error including unordered_map
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106970
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e41e69ab2d85f6756d5217a3d87ada559691e0d
commit r13-2736-g3e41e69ab2d85f6756d5217a3d87ada559691e0d
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #8 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
> I have every confidence that Lewis knows how to bring a paper for a
> 'lightweight manual reset event' to SG1, I suspect it will be well received
> when he does.
So at least before C++26 I and any other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106761
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106761
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84b2ab97e412d9514730db335a795c7db2fb42cc
commit r13-2735-g84b2ab97e412d9514730db335a795c7db2fb42cc
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #7 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
Can you give example when this optimization needed and cannot be done on user,
not stdlib side?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106772
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Rodgers ---
(In reply to Mkkt Bkkt from comment #5)
> Single reason why I want to use atomic::wait/notify is cross platform api
> for futex, wait/wake on address, ulock, etc
> Not because I need YOU decide instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
Bug ID: 106977
Summary: [13 regression] d21 dies with SIGBUS on 32-bit Darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106976
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93575
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
on re-reading the report I see the gcc-10 tag (I was too focused on trunk).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106636
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d99821624c340429b86855ffa99e731618b36c10
commit r13-2732-gd99821624c340429b86855ffa99e731618b36c10
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Code:
#include
#include
template
struct __attribute__ ((__packed__)) Shard {
NumType data[128];
};
template
class TestVector {
public:
TestVector() {
shard_index_.push_back(Shard());
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106974
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think gcc is correct here. You cannot take the address of an element of a
packed structure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106973
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> The standard says:
>
> > A call to setjmp or longjmp has undefined behavior if invoked in a
> > suspension context of a coroutine (7.6.2.4).
>
> Given that,
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
