https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
Jason Liam changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
--- Comment #4 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I meant to write:
> Concepts are not supposed to error out if there was an error in substitution.
> So this is all by design of the language.
(In reply to Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49959
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55016
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55016=edit
Patch
For some reason it didn't make it to the mailing list yet. Will figure out why
in a few. patches 2 and 3 did
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>clang does not error out either.
Nor does MSVC :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I meant to write:
Concepts are not supposed to error out if there was an error in substitution.
So this is all by design of the language.
ame_as ;
If you do:
static_assert(test);
GCC will tell you know test is false even:
:10:15: error: static assertion failed
10 | static_assert(test);
| ^~~
:10:15: note: constraints not satisfied
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20230506/include/c++/14.0.0/concepts:57:15:
re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109763
Bug ID: 109763
Summary: GCC accepts invalid program involving
decltype(classtype::memberfunction) when used with
concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55015
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55015=edit
Better patch for GCC 13+
Test which I am testing and committing (will be committing to the GCC 13 branch
too but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
aarch64_isa_flags has been uint64_t since r10-593-g28108a534165 so yes it broke
since r12-8000-g14814e20161d when aarch64_simd_switcher was introduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.3|12.4
Summary|[13/14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109662
--- Comment #11 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz ---
What about std=2008 ?
On Sat, 6 May 2023, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 14:45:39 +
> From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
> To: John Harper
> Subject: [Bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.2|12.3
Summary|[AArch64]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
--- Comment #1 from Dave Murphy ---
Created attachment 55014
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55014=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109762
Bug ID: 109762
Summary: [AArch64] gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.cc:
mismatched sizes for flags variables
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #7 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
1) Can you please still submit a proposal to the STD/ISO committee so that abs
(besides copysign/signbit) ALWAYS works ?
2) What do you think about my proposal for a C++ interface quadmath.hpp ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 9 produced:
:20:55: error: 'class outer' has no member named 'on_nested_ctor'
20 | explicit nested(outer& o)
noexcept(noexcept(o.on_nested_ctor())) :
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #2 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
I don't see how completeness of outer is related to nested's destructor. Or put
it another way, how nested's destructor noexcept specification has anything to
do with outer, whether it is completed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is correct beahvior because outer is not complete until the outer
is closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
Bug ID: 109761
Summary: Nested class destructor's noexcept specification
incorrectly considered as too loose compared to the
outer class
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
--- Comment #15 from Luke Dalessandro ---
Thanks for looking at this. I'd like to report it back to boost as an issue,
but I want to make sure I understand what to tell them.
1. The error produce by Andrew's reduction ("error: satisfaction of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
--- Comment #42 from Andrew Pinski ---
The patch is simple after recent cleanups:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
index f14b7e8b7e6..41fea78dc8d 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||51964
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> I will implement this match pattern since that is all that is needed now
> with phiopt using match.
Funny I came up with the same match patterns twice now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95729, which changed state.
Bug 95729 Summary: Failure to optimize away certain returns when the condition
to reach them is a calculation that already results in that value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #5)
> >> Again, what do you mean by "quadmath"?
>
> __float128 https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/tree/master/libquadmath
Well that's even more confusing/confused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #5 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
>> Again, what do you mean by "quadmath"?
__float128 https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/tree/master/libquadmath
This is not to be confused with C++23 std::float128_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #3)
> >> libstdc++ doesn't depend on libquadmath and the __float128 support is
> >> there very limited.
> Yes, exactly. There should be nothing of quadmath in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109760
Bug ID: 109760
Summary: riscv Internal compiler error in extract_insn after
addition of XTheadCondMov
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
--- Comment #3 from g.peterh...@t-online.de ---
>> libstdc++ doesn't depend on libquadmath and the __float128 support is there
>> very limited.
Yes, exactly. There should be nothing of quadmath in the std implementations of
C/C++. But in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Bisection using the original preprocessed code shows it started to ICE with
> r13-4937 although maybe that just added an assertion to catch a latent bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I think GCC 13 is correct to reject it (but not correct to ICE!)
Either way, I don't see how it can be a libstdc++ bug, the concept is defined
the same way, it's the compiler that diagnoses the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93447
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||102138
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71336
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
So it should be possible to extend the match pattern for what was the
two_value_replacement replacement to do this too.
The main thing is instead of difference by 1, the difference of the two
constants
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||89018, 59424
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109759
Bug ID: 109759
Summary: UBSAN error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit
type 'long unsigned int'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106677
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I don't know if this related to the original issue but in .optimized we
have now:
# RANGE [irange] unsigned char [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1
# SR.115_117 = PHI <_119(9), SR.115_121(7)>
# RANGE [irange]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36629645d5ba6a6612c87af1fe7249ea1fb8cdc5
commit r13-7302-g36629645d5ba6a6612c87af1fe7249ea1fb8cdc5
Author: Dan Horák
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87913
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95489, which changed state.
Bug 95489 Summary: Failure to optimize x && (x & y) to x & y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95489
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33157
Bug 33157 depends on bug 33158, which changed state.
Bug 33158 Summary: missed store sinking opportunity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33158
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33158
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758
Bug ID: 109758
Summary: quadmath abs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libquadmath
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109522
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> We also correctly reject:
I should say without an ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109522
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be6c13d5cef6fd9ca97dea7a6f5fbf93c51235b5
commit r14-544-gbe6c13d5cef6fd9ca97dea7a6f5fbf93c51235b5
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Sat Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90390
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1521 Seems related
to this too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathan.poelen at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:043550bceea7881163bba5d8a0486bb100a05809
commit r14-542-g043550bceea7881163bba5d8a0486bb100a05809
Author: Dan Horák
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109757
Bug ID: 109757
Summary: Conversion from lvalue to rvalue without error
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109662
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109662
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96d699196285858df5d1484b4443cf849908662f
commit r14-541-g96d699196285858df5d1484b4443cf849908662f
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756
Bug ID: 109756
Summary: "internal compiler error: tree check" when using the
[[assume]] attribute with pack expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109690
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109755
Bug ID: 109755
Summary: -Wunused-function underline points at a class, not the
unused method itself
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109670
Christoph Reiter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tneumann at users dot
sourceforge.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109670
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #6 from
79 matches
Mail list logo
