https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121620
Bug ID: 121620
Summary: Problem static linking a program using getpwnam and
getpwuid
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 84122, which changed state.
Bug 84122 Summary: Incorrect statement sequence in PDT definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84122
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84122
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:243b5b23c7e60af875f62a63dd6348e63d237243
commit r16-3308-g243b5b23c7e60af875f62a63dd6348e63d237243
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Bug 82173 depends on bug 85942, which changed state.
Bug 85942 Summary: ICE with PDTs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85942
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85942
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84122
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84094
Bug 84094 depends on bug 84122, which changed state.
Bug 84122 Summary: Incorrect statement sequence in PDT definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84122
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85942
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:243b5b23c7e60af875f62a63dd6348e63d237243
commit r16-3308-g243b5b23c7e60af875f62a63dd6348e63d237243
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120757
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea6ef13d0fc4e020d8c405333153dad9eee1f18d
commit r16-3307-gea6ef13d0fc4e020d8c405333153dad9eee1f18d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121478
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> This patch has a few regressions. I think due to convert_for_assignment
> part. I will look at fixing that in a few.
Simple fix, use omit_one_operand_loc instea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121478
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Created attachment 62164 [details]
> Patch which I am testing
This patch has a few regressions. I think due to convert_for_assignment part. I
will look at fixin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93727
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Little by little.
! pr93727 EX Format Specifiers
program main
implicit none
character s1
real(4) :: r4
real(8) :: r8
real(10) :: r10
!real(16) :: r16
r4 = -huge(34.0_4)
r8 = -huge( 1.0_8/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121553
--- Comment #19 from Sam James ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121618
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 62165
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62165&action=edit
gensupport.ii.xz
(gdb) bt
#0 read_md_rtx (info=0xfffeee74, info@entry=0xfffeee6c) at
/root/git/gcc/gcc/gensupport
--disable-werror
--enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/tmp/bisect-gcc-pfx --enable-checking=release
--with-build-config=bootstrap-time --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 16.0.0 20250820 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121619
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see how you could prove arr has a nullptr in it.
Ok, with const maybe the compiler could see that but then it needs to record
that somehow but there is no way currently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
Version|unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 108770, which changed state.
Bug 108770 Summary: [13/14/15/16 regression] Spurious -Warray-bounds at -O2
(gcc >= 12)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
What|Removed |Ad
linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121478
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 62164
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62164&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Teylu ---
> and also add the new option on top.
Doesn't the new option just cause gcc to elucidate the existing warning a bit
more?
I think, even if gcc tries to explain a bit more, the diagnostic is still
spurious.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Teylu from comment #6)
> Apologies for not testing this; I tried it on godbolt and got:
godbolt rebuilds nightly, so you'll need to wait until midnight (or maybe a bit
later, not sure when i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Teylu ---
Apologies for not testing this; I tried it on godbolt and got:
```
: In function 'init':
:10:13: error: array subscript 2 is above array bounds of 'const char
*[2]' [-Werror=array-bounds=]
10 | while (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 88771, which changed state.
Bug 88771 Summary: Misleading -Werror=array-bounds error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121595
--- Comment #4 from Matteo Nicoli ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Matteo Nicoli from comment #2)
> > This optimization must still be available when using the -ffast-math option,
> > right?
>
> No, just -fno-trappi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121618
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||armv7a-unknown-linux-gnueab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 106762, which changed state.
Bug 106762 Summary: incorrect array bounds warning (-Warray-bounds) at -O2 on
memset()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106762
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121613
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 62163
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62163&action=edit
A patch
Will this work for all cases?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 108770, which changed state.
Bug 108770 Summary: [13/14/15/16 regression] Spurious -Warray-bounds at -O2
(gcc >= 12)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117179
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.5|16.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 85788, which changed state.
Bug 85788 Summary: False positive of -Wstringop-overflow= warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85788
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 109071, which changed state.
Bug 109071 Summary: need more context for -Warray-bounds warnings due to code
duplication from jump threading and inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88781
Bug 88781 depends on bug 109071, which changed state.
Bug 109071 Summary: need more context for -Warray-bounds warnings due to code
duplication from jump threading and inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85788
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||16.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 109071, which changed state.
Bug 109071 Summary: need more context for -Warray-bounds warnings due to code
duplication from jump threading and inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794
Bug 19794 depends on bug 109071, which changed state.
Bug 109071 Summary: need more context for -Warray-bounds warnings due to code
duplication from jump threading and inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 109071, which changed state.
Bug 109071 Summary: need more context for -Warray-bounds warnings due to code
duplication from jump threading and inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 109071, which changed state.
Bug 109071 Summary: need more context for -Warray-bounds warnings due to code
duplication from jump threading and inlining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121595
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||16.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106762
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||16.0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 115274, which changed state.
Bug 115274 Summary: [14/15/16 regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overread in SQLite
source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 117179, which changed state.
Bug 117179 Summary: Confusing -Warray-bounds output for wget (wrong order of
conditions in if statement)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117179
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121595
Matteo Nicoli changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matteo.nicoli001 at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121453
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> if (fd->collapse > 1
> && (gimple_omp_for_combined_into_p (fd->for_stmt)
> || broken_loop))
Commenting the '&& (...)' condition does not help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121616
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121553
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51fbd1e4ea8023847d786a0fdc89219e93bcc666
commit r16-3305-g51fbd1e4ea8023847d786a0fdc89219e93bcc666
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121553
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121618
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(In
efault-ssp --disable-fixincludes
--with-gxx-libcxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/v1
--with-build-config='bootstrap-O3 bootstrap-lto'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 16.0.0 20250820 (experimental)
e78eb2f85b9b61cf193dfc721bbd58966bea76df (Gentoo 16.0. p, commit
f65bd49e153e44a12a1462ec76be031e71bfa0c3)
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121616
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121617
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So for fma function call, it is all called out to the glibc function for -O0
...
This seems like not a GCC bug then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121617
Bug ID: 121617
Summary: arithmetic result or 'fma' result is zero when
denormals are zero but result is not zero and normal
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
binutils-libs just finished OK. I also checked mpfr, gmp, and python.
I will continue testing (will do whole set) but you can go ahead now I think.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121616
Bug ID: 121616
Summary: Assignment to an unlimited polymorphic variable causes
a segmentation fault at runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121616
--- Comment #1 from Jean Vézina ---
Intel Fortran (ifx) compiles and run the test program successfully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> I started a build. It'll be a few hours. Thanks.
I will hold off my patch until I get your confirmation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91319
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
(In fact, I even explained that in the original report above.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85788
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
commit r16-3303-g6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Aug 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> I really think modern distros should just --disable-fixincludes.
It's not as simple as that. See PR107128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Bug 119089 and its dups are not distro builds, they're end users building GCC
themselves.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-August/692933.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
commit r16-3303-g6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch for (I believe) all of them ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117179
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
commit r16-3303-g6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
commit r16-3303-g6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Aug 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #30 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
commit r16-3303-g6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Aug 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
commit r16-3303-g6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106762
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
commit r16-3303-g6faa3cfe60ff9769d1bebfffdd2c7325217d7389
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Aug 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm seeing some libstdc++ regressions due to this (otherwise very nice) change,
when the testsuite is run for C++20 and later:
FAIL: 20_util/optional/cons/value_neg.cc -std=gnu++20 (test for excess error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121614
--- Comment #2 from mtxn at duck dot com ---
Created attachment 62160
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62160&action=edit
testcase
stripped as much unnecessary code as I could.
compiler output of this case does not contain er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118757
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkaminsk at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121615
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, that lost the call to __complex_abs for the C99 case, it should be:
template
inline _Tp
__complex_abs(const complex<_Tp>& __z)
{ return hypot(__z.real(), __z.imag()); }
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121615
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or just use hypot(real, imag) for integer types, which will promote them to
double that way instead.
// 26.2.7/3 abs(__z): Returns the magnitude of __z.
#if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX
inline float
__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
I started a build. It'll be a few hours. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121615
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120416
Pierre Ossman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|unreachable() missing on|unreachable() missing on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 62159
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62159&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> Can you try -fstack-protector?
Yes, that is it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121615
Bug ID: 121615
Summary: Function abs(complex) does not compute correct
results
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121614
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to m...@duck.com from comment #0)
> Bug consist of gcc failing to define 'vtable' and create 'typeinfo' symbols
> when using modules, when declaration and definition are located in different
> comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> pdp11.i won't compile and bfd.i is missing.
It was marked obsolete because I managed to get a single testcase. They're
still here.
Anyway, I was missing a } at the end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121614
Bug ID: 121614
Summary: c++ modules, gcc fails to define 'vtable' and create
'typeinfo' symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Can you try -fstack-protector?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> Created attachment 62158 [details]
> pdp11.i
With r16-3298-gfc23b539caa16a, I can't reproduce it:
[hjl@gnu-zen4-1 pr121607]$ cat x.c
typedef enum
{
bfd_error_invalid_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119859
--- Comment #16 from Patrick Palka ---
Still not fixed, the patch was for a related issue exposed by this one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121607
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #62154|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121613
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
