Re: GCC Installation breaks older header files

This mailing list is for automated mail from our bugzilla database, not for reporting bugs. It looks like you should be using the gcc-help mailing list anyway, not reporting a bug. I've CC'd that list. Please remove the gcc-bugs mailing list from the CC list when replying. On 20/05/24 20:48

Re: ’ ] ' is displayed.

This mailing list is for automated emails from our bug database, not for reporting bugs directly. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for how to report bugs, thanks.

Re: Strange compile error when g++ work with std=c++20.

This mailing list is for automated email from our Bugzilla bug database, not for reporting bugs directly. Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for instructions on how to report bugs. However, Andrew already explained why GCC is correct and this is not a GCC bug. Just use

Re: C++ undefined behaviour sanitiser bug when compiled with optimization

This mailing list is for automated email from our bug tracker, it's not for reporting bugs directly. Emails sent to this list are likely to be missed, and definitely won't get entered into the bug tracker. Please use Bugzilla to report bugs, as described at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/

Re: GNU C raw string literals not documented?

> Not sure if this is the right mailing list for this. It's not. This mailing list is for automated email from our bug tracker. If you want to report a bug, please use that bug tracker instead of an email. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for instructions. Thanks!

Re: Stack Canary Security Issue in gcc-arm-none-eabi-9

On 18/05/23 12:01 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: This mailing list is for automated email from our bugzilla database. To report a bug, please don't email the list, use bugzilla as documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ - thanks. Note however, that GCC 9 is no longer supported by gcc.gnu.org

Re: Stack Canary Security Issue in gcc-arm-none-eabi-9

This mailing list is for automated email from our bugzilla database. To report a bug, please don't email the list, use bugzilla as documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ - thanks.

Re: printf behaviour

This mailing list is for automated mails from our Bugzilla bug tracker system. If you want to report a bug, please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ If you want to ask a question, use the gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org list, not the gcc-bugs list. Please direct any follow-up discussion there instead. There

Re: Y2038: GCC gthr-posix.h weakref symbol invoking function has impact on time values

c2bbce5d0611ffca27823049 > Author: Jonathan Wakely > Date: Tue Nov 9 23:45:36 2021 + > > libstdc++: Disable gthreads weak symbols for glibc 2.34 [PR103133] Indeed, as pointed out in bugzilla after the discussion moved there: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109540

Re: About initialization of automatic variables

The gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org list is for automated email from our Bugzilla database, please don't use it to report bugs or to ask questions about how GCC works. For questions about using GCC send email to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org and to report bugs please use bugzilla: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ Thanks!

Re: Y2038: GCC gthr-posix.h weakref symbol invoking function has impact on time values

ead_cond_wait.c of glibc > Yes, I understand that. Like Andrew said, please file it in bugzilla. Somebody will create your account later today. > > *From:* Jonathan Wakely > *Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2023 12:53 PM > *To:* Andrew Pinski > *Cc:* Puneet Kumar Yatnal (QUIC) ;

Re: Y2038: GCC gthr-posix.h weakref symbol invoking function has impact on time values

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023, 07:54 Andrew Pinski via Gcc-help, wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 10:41 PM Puneet Kumar Yatnal (QUIC) via > Gcc-bugs wrote: > > > > > > ++ > > From: Puneet Kumar Yatnal (QUIC) > > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 9:26 AM > > To: gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: Y2038: GCC

Re: gcc-12: FTBFS on hurd-i386

Hello, This mailing list is for automated mail from Bugzilla. Emails sent directly to this list are liable to be missed or just ignored. Please report bugs to Bugzilla instead, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ Patches should be sent to the gcc-patches mailing list, not gcc-bugs:

Re: Weird struct behavior on ESA S390

This mailing list is for automated emails from our bugzilla database, not for reporting bugs directly. To report a bug please follow the instructions at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ Your email doesn't look like a bug report anyway, maybe you meant to send it to the gcc-help mailing list? Thanks.

Re: Compilation of rust-demangle.c fails on MinGW

> The libiberty README says to report bugs to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. Well that needs to be fixed. It should point to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ instead.

Re: Compilation of rust-demangle.c fails on MinGW

In GCC's bugzilla. You could also report it to the sourceware.org bugzilla for binutils, but I think GCC is the upstream for libiberty.

Re: RISC-V: Parsing custom extension that is version 0

The gcc-bugs mailing list is for automated mails from our Bugzilla database. Bug reports should be entered into Bugzilla, and discussions should happen in Bugzilla or on a more apppropriate mailing list (because most GCC devs do not routinely read the gcc-bugs mails).

Re: How to fix GCC Upgrade issues(which always disappeared by add some trace prints)?

This mailing list is for automated mails from our bug database. Please use the gcc-help mailing list for questions like this.

Re: stdc++ issue: extremely long compile time with large number of string literals

> I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for asking about No it's not, this list is for automated mails from our bug database. > (possible) g++ issues. If not, I'd appreciate it if someone can point > me to the right one. See https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html which tells you that gcc-help

Re: How GCC treats ice-on-invalid-code?

> These are the “true” ice-on-invalid-code bugs, i.e. those that are > meant to be classified as “ice-on-invalid-code” instead of “error-recovery” > in bugzilla. They generally get much more attention than “error-recovery” > bugs. And even those are lower priority than ice-on-valid bugs, and

Re: How GCC treats ice-on-invalid-code?

> I am sorry maybe I send this in a wrong place, I have sent this again in > gcc-bug-requ...@gcc.gun.org. Well that's even more wrong. g...@gcc.gnu.org would be the right place.

Re: bug in bit structure compilation

I know you've realised the problem here now, but ... This mailing list is for automated mails from our bugzilla database. To report a bug please use bugzilla. Sending email directly to the list will often be ignored, and will never create a bugzilla report. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for

Re: template auto deduction ICE in the latest gcc master version.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 19:31, sotrdg sotrdg wrote: > > https://github.com/euloanty/fast_io/blob/master/examples/0036.concepts_check/iostrm.cc > > > > cqwrteur@DESKTOP-7H7UHQ9:/mnt/d/hg/fast_io/examples/build$ ninja > [1/2] Building CXX object >

Re: mingw-w64 gcc 9.1.0 - cc1plus: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

On 16/05/19 06:16 +, hien via gcc-bugs wrote: Hi folks, I've encounterd a bug with GCC 9.1.0 on the mingw-w64 target. g++ is built as a cross-compiler running on 64-bit GNU/Linux (glibc 2.29, linux 5.1.2)... $ x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -v .//configure --prefix=/usr

Re: bug ? : -Wpedantic -Wconversion 'short a=1; a-=1;' complaint

On 16/05/18 13:58 +, Jason Vas Dias wrote: Great thanks for your informative response, Jim! : RE: On 23/04/2018, Jim Wilson wrote: On 04/23/2018 07:11 AM, Jason Vas Dias wrote: I really do not think a '-Wpedantic -Wconversion' warning should be generated for the

Re: Strict aliasing-related bug even with optimizations disabled

On 17/03/18 14:40 -0400, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: This was originally posted on Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/a/49339771/119527 This mailing list is for automated emails from Bugzilla, not for reporting bugs. Please use Bugzilla to report bugs, as explained at

Re: Bug in std::floor?

The gcc-bugs@gcc email list is for automated email from our bug tracking database, not for reporting bugs, and not for "is this a bug?" questions. I've CC'd this to the gcc-help list where this is more appropriate (please remove gcc-bugs from any follow-up replies). On 08/11/17 23:13 +0200, Nil

Re: [Bug web/?????] New: Fwd: failure notice: Bugzilla down.

On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: >> >> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I >> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error >> message looks like this: Even if it were possible,

Re: sanitizer bug maybe.

On 10/07/17 17:29 +, George R Goffe via gcc-bugs wrote: Hi, I'm hoping this is a bug and NOT a UFU (user foul up). Thanks! George... checking for clock_gettime... libtool: compile: /tools/gcc/obj-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/tools/gcc/obj-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/./gcc

Re: Is this a bug or... did I goof?

On 08/07/17 20:01 +, George R Goffe via gcc-bugs wrote: Hį I have experienced this bug for the past 2-3 days. I'm not sure if it's a bug or I have missed something important. I have a complete build log available if needed. Here's the tail of the log. Thanks ahead of time for your help.

Re: copy_n should result in a one past the end input iterator

On 21/11/16 03:10 +, Robert Young wrote: /* gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c++11 copy_n_vs_copy.cpp -lstdc++ -o copy_n_vs_copy One Past the End https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/iterators.html#iterators.predefined.end BUG location:

Re: Broken connect syscall invocation ?

On 26/05/16 07:37 +, Artem Polyakov wrote: Hello, I'm using the following version of GCC: artpol@artpol-ThinkPad-T430 ~ $ gcc --version gcc (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.1) 4.8.4 Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.

Re: Could not open source file limits.h

This mailing list is for automated emails from our Bugzilla database, I suggest you send your mail to the gcc-help list instead.

Re: gcc-4.7.2 bug in Makefile.in and configure.ac

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2012-09/msg02363.html Hi, the gcc-bugs list is for automated mails from the GCC Bugzilla database. Please use Bugzilla to report bugs, rather than mailing the list directly, this ensures the mail will be read and the issue can be tracked correctly. The issue

Re: std::string::assign

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2012-08/msg01843.html Hi, the gcc-bugs mailing list is for automated mails from our bug database, http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla To ensure a response you should either file a bug in the bugzilla database to it can be tracked and found by the interested parties, or

[patch] PR web/53919 - Add note to install.texi

/ refer to the SVN trunk. OK for trunk? commit 8a2c697641369c9448a605101d65be7d3ccd6630 Author: Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com Date: Fri Jul 13 10:06:09 2012 +0100 PR c++/53919 * doc/install.texi (Installing GCC): Refer to instructions for released versions. Fix

Re: [patch] PR web/53919 - Add note to install.texi

Please ignore, sent to the wrong list On 14 July 2012 14:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote: PR c++/53919 * doc/install.texi (Installing GCC): Refer to instructions for released versions. Fix hyphenation. Whether or not we want the release-specific installation instructions

Re: gcc-4.7.1 build system question : why is make bootstrap with configure option '--enable-languages=c' building the C++ compiler ?

Hi, The gcc-bugs mailing list is for automated emails from our Bugzilla database. Your question is not about a bug, so would be more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing list. The answer to your question is that GCC itself is now built using a C++ compiler, so it needs to build the C++ compiler

Re: Different linking behavior between g++ 4.5.2 and 4.6.1

This is the gcc-bugs list, for automated mails from our Bugzilla database. Your email should probably have been sent to the gcc-help list. http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

Re: Possible armv7 hardfp try catch bug

Hi, Bugs should be reported to Bugzilla, not the mailing list, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs Requests for help using GCC should be sent to the gcc-help mailing list, see http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

Re: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by build/ge nhooks)â

re http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2011-09/msg01506.html This mailing list is for automated emails from our bug database, people don't use it for discussions via email. To report a bug please use bugzilla, using the instructions at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ To ask for help using or building GCC

Re: code won't compile on new version of gcc

Re http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2011-07/msg02349.html This mailing list is for automatically generated emails from Bugzilla, mails sent to it directly may get missed or ignored. You should send questions about using GCC to the gcc-help list. Bugs should be reported to Bugzilla, not by email.

Re: C++ template bugs in gcc 4.6

re http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2011-05/msg01899.html The gcc-bugs mailing list is for mails automatically generated by bugzilla, if you want to report a bug please do so in bugzilla, not by email. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for instructions. If you want to ask for help using g++ then use

Re: C++ template bugs in gcc 4.6

On 22 May 2011 15:16, Ruben Safir ru...@mrbrklyn.com wrote: On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 02:29:08PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: re http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2011-05/msg01899.html The gcc-bugs mailing list is for mails automatically generated by bugzilla, if you want to report a bug please

Re: gcc's cpp makes ?: left-associative

The correct way to report bugs is via bugzilla, as described at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ The gcc-bugs list consists almost entirely of auto-generated mail from bugzilla so mails sent there can be missed and they don't get tracked in bugzilla. GCC 4.4 and later have the right result, but I don't

Re: Problem compiling a program with openmp and multithreading

The gcc-bugs mailing list is for emails automatically generated by our bug database, to report a bug please follow the instructions at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ However, your email doesn't seem to be a bug report and you don't give enough information for a useful bug report, you haven't said what