https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107240
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107172
--- Comment #34 from Hongtao.liu ---
There's 2 similar issues in PR107273 and PR107269.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107269
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107273
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107284
Bug ID: 107284
Summary: Option properties Mask infrastructure can be extended
with wide_int_bitmask
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107283
--- Comment #2 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
That will be right. I had reported something similar many years ago - but it
was not fixed.
thx
Gero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107283
Bug ID: 107283
Summary: conversions u/int64_t to float64/32_t are not
vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107282
Bug ID: 107282
Summary: ICE on valid code template + overloaded + visit
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107281
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Try to compile the testcase with -msse4.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107281
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53711
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53711=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107281
Bug ID: 107281
Summary: comparisations with u/int64_t constants not generate
vector-result
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101697
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So this issue has come up again in the context of LRA conversion which happens
to trip over the same bug, but with a different testcase.
At the core of this problem is reload and LRA will both generate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107280
Bug ID: 107280
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected constructor, have
view_convert_expr in cxx_eval_store_expression, at
cp/constexpr.cc:5928
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107272
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=107206
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 14.10.2022 um 18:53 schrieb jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107206
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
> I believe this is fallout
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107279
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't care which way this gets fixed. That is the documentation could be
changed or we support this in the C++ front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Link to the current documentation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Complex.html#index-_005f_005fbuiltin_005fcomplex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107279
Bug ID: 107279
Summary: __builtin_complex is not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
Jonathan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Dup of bug 103593.
>
> CWG2237 is the defect report #.
>From that defect report:
```
(Note that this resolution is a change for C++20, NOT a defect report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103593
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ky4ct at arrl dot net
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Clang might not implement the defect report after all ...
This is why I asked for a link to it so I could understand this issue at its
core; at any rate, thanks for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Clang might not implement the defect report after all ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Iirc there was a defect report against the c++ standard here and you should
> just foo instead of foo
kd5eax@KY4CT CLANG64 ~
$ cat test.cpp
template
class foo
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Iirc there was a defect report against the c++ standard here and you should
> just foo instead of foo
kd5eax@KY4CT CLANG64 ~
$ cat test.cpp
template
class foo
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Iirc there was a defect report against the c++ standard here and you should
just foo instead of foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
Bug ID: 107278
Summary: fails to correctly parse template default function
declarations.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107277
Bug ID: 107277
Summary: Spurious -Wformat-overflow when combined with
__builtin_expect()
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107267
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107267
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #5)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> > Trying a git bisect with git hash 93b3ab6c0c6a44df.
>
> Seems good. Trying eb491ea5c10955c6.
Seems good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107267
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> Trying a git bisect with git hash 93b3ab6c0c6a44df.
Seems good. Trying eb491ea5c10955c6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107267
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Trying a git bisect with git hash 93b3ab6c0c6a44df.
34 matches
Mail list logo
