https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111607
Bug ID: 111607
Summary: False positive -Wdangling-reference
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110127
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Thank you for feedback!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110127
Bug ID: 110127
Summary: -fimplicit-constexpr leads to extremely slow and
memory intensive compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 109666 ***
Ah thanks, and sorry for the dup. Searched for bagin_maybe_infinite_loop and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
Bug ID: 109785
Summary: ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88804
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
--- Comment #13 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
User99627, a few points:
* My test case does require lto to be present. There's nothing to be gained
from your statement that the bug doesn't require lto, there are test cases for
either case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
--- Comment #9 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
I forgot to mention that my test case requires -flto to be present.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
fiesh at zefix dot tv changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
--- Comment #1 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Oh and this appears to be a regression introduced in GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212
Bug ID: 106212
Summary: Code becomes non-constexpr with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105823
Bug ID: 105823
Summary: -Wrestrict / -Wstringop-overflow / -Warray-bounds
warnings for uninitialized values
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105821
Bug ID: 105821
Summary: ICE for illegal constexpr-if
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #7 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Thanks for the outline! We'll turn off -Wmismatched-new-delete with GCC 11 and
try to switch to the selective opt-out with pragmas in 12. That's a good
workaround for now.
On a random related
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #5 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> extern "C" void free (void *);
>
> class Base
> {
> public:
> Base();
>
> void * operator new(unsigned long, const int &);
> void operator delete(void * ptr, const int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #3 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
* marking operator delete noinline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
But this isn't really a solution since I can't inline new without moving a lot
of code into the header, and marking `operator new` noinline isn't what I want
either. I read both articles prior to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
Bug ID: 100485
Summary: False positive in -Wmismatched-new-delete
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99713
Bug ID: 99713
Summary: Add _GLIBCXX_CHECK_PREDICATES that violates runtime
guarantees and ensures predicates are valid
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99640
Bug ID: 99640
Summary: Internal compiler error: in lookup_template_class_1,
at cp/pt.c:9895
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99356
Bug ID: 99356
Summary: Recursive std::shared_future:s with
std::launch::deferred sporadically deadlock
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97949
Bug ID: 97949
Summary: Recursive calls of std::call_once together with cout
leads to deadlock under mingw64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
22 matches
Mail list logo
