requires { typename std::bool_constant; };
| ^
In file included from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20231005/include/c++/14.0.0/type_traits:120:11:
note: 'template using std::bool_constant = std::__bool_constant<__v>'
declared here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111260
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #2)
...
> > ...
>
> That is 100% a different bug and should be filed separately.
Than you for checking, I've created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111711
Bug ID: 111711
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: in maybe_legitimize_operand, at
optabs.cc:8046 at -O1 with division by zero
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111260
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #2)
> Different testcase:
> $ cat testcase.c
> long
> bar (long x)
> {
> x *= x == 0 / 0;
> return (x);
> }
>
> long
> foo (void)
> {
> return bar (822920);
> }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111260
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hanke Zhang from comment #11)
> But I have never seen this '_FORTIFY_SOURCE' before. So I'm a confused as
> well. And when I try gcc@11.4 built in the default ubuntu 22.04, it's the
> same. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #11 from Hanke Zhang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> The difference between the 2 is the costing of the __printf_chk/puts:
> _FORTIFY_SOURCE case:
> freq:0.20 size: 3 time:2.43 __printf_chk (1, "Object code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc's C++ components fail |gcc fails to bootstrap when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yedeng.yd at linux dot
alibaba.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109887
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100135
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Werner ---
Possibly the gcc behaviour here is correct. There is a clang bug open for it
not rejecting calls to functions with default parameters, when the default
parameter is not exported:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Typically these sorts of issues result from floating-point operations
being moved past environment manipulation (fesetround, feupdateenv,
feholdexcept, etc.) - in either direction. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100135
Nicolas Werner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.werner at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #48 from Martin Uecker ---
Indicating a null terminated string should certainly use a different attribute
name.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Thorsten Glaser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Comment #47
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
Kyle Knoepfel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
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=111710
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Werner ---
I don't really have sufficient knowledge to push this patch forward, since that
currently exceeds my skillset. As such I have no confidence this patch is
actually doing something beneficial, which is why I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111710
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patches should be sent to gcc-patches@ after reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111710
Bug ID: 111710
Summary: [modules] ICE when compiling module where a lambda is
assigned to a field in an exported class
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111708
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note ICC rejects this as invalid:
```
(14): error #172: external/internal linkage conflict with previous
declaration at line 10
int f(int);
^
```
Which is what I had expected to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 56062
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56062=edit
Diff between s_fma_12.s and s_fma_13.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 56061
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56061=edit
non pic .s file for s_fma.c generated using gcc-13 without debug info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108396
Carl Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 56060
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56060=edit
non pic .s file for s_fma.c generated using gcc-12 without debug info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 56059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56059=edit
.s file for s_fma.c generated using gcc-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 56058
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56058=edit
.s file for s_fma.c generated using gcc-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 56057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56057=edit
Preprocessed source generated using gcc-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111709
Bug ID: 111709
Summary: [13 Regression] Miscompilation of
sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/s_fma.c
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92798
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Joseph Tilahun from comment #4)
> Is there a reason why the _Rb_tree_color
> enum does not have an explicit underlying type?
Yes because it has to work with C++98 while enums with underlying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111708
Bug ID: 111708
Summary: Calling external global function instead of local
static function.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92798
Joseph Tilahun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josephttilahun at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(simplify
(vec_cond (vec_cond:s @0 @3 integer_zerop) @1 @2)
(if (optimize_vectors_before_lowering_p () && types_match (@0, @3))
(vec_cond (bit_and @0 @3) @1 @2)))
goes into an infinite loop with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111707
Bug ID: 111707
Summary: omp_target_alloc and omp_target_is_present - corner
case handling & spec conformance
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-05
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Simon.Richter at hogyros dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111283
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110368
--- Comment #6 from Jon Clugston ---
So, "undefined behavior" gives the compiler license to output any warning it
wants?
The warning message is utterly wrong and completely misleading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111559
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111559
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sergei Trofimovich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:043a6fcbc27f8721301eb2f72a7839f54f393003
commit r14-4421-g043a6fcbc27f8721301eb2f72a7839f54f393003
Author: Sergei Trofimovich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111283
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sergei Trofimovich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:043a6fcbc27f8721301eb2f72a7839f54f393003
commit r14-4421-g043a6fcbc27f8721301eb2f72a7839f54f393003
Author: Sergei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6bff80d786919f2f64e8a9f3179d6d36888bdb3
commit r14-4418-gc6bff80d786919f2f64e8a9f3179d6d36888bdb3
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111705
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually this is rejected in previous versions of GCC via -fchecking=2 option
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|---
Summary|[14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111705
Bug ID: 111705
Summary: [14 Regression] use of concepted copy constructored
struct inside a template function messes up
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111704
Bug ID: 111704
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 on
aarch64-linux-gnu during RTL pass: cprop_hardreg
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111703
Bug ID: 111703
Summary: [C++20]Compiler fails when using generic lambda in
specific situation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
4-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-4413-20231005141000-g1f7295af602-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20231005 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list consisting of:
- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632042.html and
- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632044.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f7295af6029b6497e9928fe279fd166b94ce2c2
commit r14-4413-g1f7295af6029b6497e9928fe279fd166b94ce2c2
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111698
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I guess we could do this even on GIMPLE and in general to aligned sub-word
> accesses (where byte accesses are always aligned).
>
> It might be also a good fit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 regression] bootstrap |[14 regression] bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111553
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is now documented as not-a-bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_cxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffbd7c3d0fd1b9b10ef5a0f2b2e64bd234620167
commit r14-4404-gffbd7c3d0fd1b9b10ef5a0f2b2e64bd234620167
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111701
Bug ID: 111701
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code for
__builtin_signbit(x*x)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111697
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> We have quite some code doing vector CTOR stuff in tree-ssa-forwprop.cc and
> this should be optimized to
>
> v_2 = { x_6(D), x_6(D), x_6(D), x_6(D) };
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111697
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We have quite some code doing vector CTOR stuff in tree-ssa-forwprop.cc and
this should be optimized to
v_2 = { x_6(D), x_6(D), x_6(D), x_6(D) };
note SLP vectorization can do this but it fails because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jiangning Liu from comment #12)
> Hi Richi,
>
> > That said, "failure" to identify the common (vector) load is known
> > and I do have experimental patches trying to address that but did
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #6 from Zeb Figura ---
It is my impression that gcc is interested in avoiding false positives for its
warnings. This isn't to say that there aren't some number of false positives in
existence, but it is my impression that gcc is
81 matches
Mail list logo
