https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #12 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Brown from comment #8)
> > As for using "=X" in the "opt == 3" case, I worry that that could lead to
> > errors as the two assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #8)
> As for using "=X" in the "opt == 3" case, I worry that that could lead to
> errors as the two assembly lines are independent. The first says "put X
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> But the dump from combine does not make sense:
What about this does not make sense to you?
> Failed to match this instruction:
and then still doing stuff? That is normal. I'll work on making that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> From the context given in the gcc-help thread, the goal is to place an
> optimization barrier in a sequence of floating-point calculation. "+r" is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #8 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> Nothing has changed here.
>
> opt == 2 and opt == 3 should use "=X", not "+X", btw.
>
I realise (since you told me - thanks) that
asm ("" : "+X" (x))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #7 from David Brown ---
Yes, the goal is an optimisation barrier with the least possible impact on the
code. For most uses, asm("" : "+g" (x)) has been ideal, as far as I have
tested. Typically it ensures "x" is evaluated in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh, and if the goal of the code is to put and keep the datum in a register, the
code should really use "+r" anyway!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Nothing has changed here.
opt == 2 and opt == 3 should use "=X", not "+X", btw.
combine is perfectly correct that "X" allows *any operand whatsoever*, also
those
that you cannot really use as an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So the problem seems like combine decides somehow to
> combine:
> ```
> (insn 7 4 9 2 (set (reg/v:SF 100 [ xD.4459 ])
> (plus:SF (reg/v:SF 102 [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113280
Bug ID: 113280
Summary: Strange error for empty inline assembly with +X
constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82746
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|link-failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase for the first issue (note it is a different error but the
problem is the same):
using Callback = void();
template
struct GetSetHelper
{
static void set( Callback callback_ = []() {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
--- Comment #5 from dennis luehring ---
-DTEST=1 compiles under Ubuntu 21.04 with g++ 10.3.0
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/lto-wrapper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
--- Comment #4 from dennis luehring ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> >gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c++17 test.cpp -DTEST=2
>
>
> This is wrong, you should use g++ to link as you need to link against
> libstdc++ which gcc does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c++17 test.cpp -DTEST=2
This is wrong, you should use g++ to link as you need to link against libstdc++
which gcc does not do which is why you are not seeing it on gcc.godbolt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
--- Comment #2 from dennis luehring ---
Created attachment 51766
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51766=edit
s-file
output of "gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c++17 test.cpp -DTEST=1 -save-temps"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
--- Comment #1 from dennis luehring ---
Created attachment 51765
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51765=edit
ii-file
output of "gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c++17 test.cpp -DTEST=1 -save-temps"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103186
Bug ID: 103186
Summary: redefinition of template symbol error with strange
error diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
--- Comment #5 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Jan 16 21:40:33 2019
New Revision: 267987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267987=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix diagnostics for never-defined inline and nested functions (PR c/88720, PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Regression] Strange|[7 Regression] Strange
|error message about nested |error message about nested
|function declared but not |function declared but not
|defined when using inline. |defined when using inline.
--- Comment #4 from Joseph S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:32:00 2019
New Revision: 267949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267949=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix diagnostics for never-defined inline and nested functions (PR c/88720, PR
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-07
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
Summary|Strange error message about |[7/8 Regression] Strange
|nested function declared|error message about nested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Mon Jan 7 22:39:43 2019
New Revision: 267665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267665=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix diagnostics for never-defined inline and nested functions (PR c/88720, PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
Bug ID: 88720
Summary: Strange error message about nested function declared
but not defined when using inline.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 23 19:58:57 2018
New Revision: 259572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259572=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/85470 - wrong error with static data member.
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 23 19:11:22 2018
New Revision: 259571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259571=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/85470 - wrong error with static data member.
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/cp/typeck2.c.jj 2018-04-19 15:57:36.765482568 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/typeck2.c2018-04-19 19:32:43.335986274 +0200
@@ -824,7 +824,9 @@ store_init_value (tree decl, tree init,
bool const_init;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
Summary|Strange error about "call |[7/8 Regression] Strange
|to non-constexpr function" |error about "call to
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Bug ID: 85470
Summary: Strange error about "call to non-constexpr function"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82746
Bug ID: 82746
Summary: strange error on BIP function returning private type
with Disable_Controlled
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79546
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79546
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>-Werror=unsafe-loop-optimizations
That is not enabled by default even with -Werror -W -Wall.
But "missed loop optimization, the loop counter may overflow" is basically
saying if i was an signed integer,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79546
Bug ID: 79546
Summary: Strange error: missed loop optimization, the loop
counter may overflow
[-Werror=unsafe-loop-optimizations]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jul 10 14:44:43 2015
New Revision: 225679
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225679root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-10 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
This is fixed in mainline. I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
Bug ID: 60842
Summary: In-class initializer causes a strange error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This looks very similar to PR51666
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
N.B. the simplest workaround is:
Jint, N::I j{};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53873
Bug #: 53873
Summary: [C++11] strange error message for template overloading
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53873
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53873
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-06
16:06:25 UTC ---
Please search for existing bugs before submitting.
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 01:24 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 01:24 ---
Close as a dup of bug 3885.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3885 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
suffix. (Valid
integer suffices are U, UL, and so on.)
--
Summary: strange error from winavr 20070525
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned
:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution||INVALID
Summary|strange error from winavr
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-06 02:29 ---
Subject: Bug 27981
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Aug 6 02:29:24 2006
New Revision: 115964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=115964
Log:
2006-08-05 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-06 02:40 ---
Fixed on the 4.1 branch.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-23 21:05 ---
Subject: Bug 27981
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 23 21:05:04 2006
New Revision: 114950
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114950
Log:
2006-06-23 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-23 21:12 ---
Applied to trunk. I'll apply this to 4.1 in a few days.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-10 20:27 ---
I have a tentative patch for this problem that I'm testing now.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
kind integer*32, or something similar.
--
Summary: Strange error message for illegal integer constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-10 05:03 ---
Erik,
Thanks for the report. This is yet another example of gfortran's
error handling code getting confused. If you remove the if (.true.)
then you get the error message you want. If the if statement, the
error is
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-28
10:23 ---
Subject: Bug 16002
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 10:22:23
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite :
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-28
10:24 ---
Fixed also for GCC 3.4.5.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
.
doing a gcc blah.c ${wherever}/libgfortran.a -o blah does work.
Strange...
best regards
Andreas
--
Summary: Dynamically linking a C program with libgfortran
produces a strange error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-17
18:12 ---
This basicially fixed in 4.0.1 but there might be other issues left.
This is also a dup of bug 20179.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20179 ***
--
What|Removed
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16002
explicitly initialize the member outside the class definition
via specializations, which is tolerable given that only a small number of cases
of this template class are used.
--
Summary: Strange error message on reference to static const
member initialized via cast
-valid
Resolution||DUPLICATE
Summary|Strange error message on|[4.0/4.1 Regression] Strange
|reference to static const |error message on reference
|member initialized via cast |to static const member
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16
11:00 ---
2004-12-16 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/18905
* cp-tree.h (integral_constant_value): Declare.
* call.c (null_ptr_cst_p): Use integral_constant_value, not
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16
11:04 ---
Subject: Bug 18905
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-16 11:04:09
Modified files:
gcc/cp : call.c class.c cp-tree.h cvt.c
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
: Strange error: subscripted value is neither array nor
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From schnetter at aei dot mpg dot de 2004-12-09
15:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=7713)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7713action=view)
gzipped failing source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18905
||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-12-09 15:25:25
date||
Summary|Strange error: subscripted |[4.0 Regression] Strange
|value is neither array nor |error: subscripted value
When I try to compile this code (witch has one ')' missing)
I get a strange error... Is it a bug?
bye, Mirko
P.S.: I use gcc (GCC) 3.2.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2.2-3mdk)
29: for(i=1; inArg ;printf(%s\n, vsArg[i],i++)
30: if(strcmp(vsArg[i], -png)==0)
31: opz.nomeimg = vsArg[++i];
cbarre.c
When I try to compile this code (witch has one ')' missing)
I get a strange error... Is it a bug?
I use gcc (GCC) 3.2.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2.2-3mdk)
29: for(i=1; inArg ;printf(%s\n, vsArg[i],i++)
30: if(strcmp(vsArg[i], -png)==0)
31: opz.nomeimg = vsArg[++i];
cbarre.c: In function
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-01 00:45
---
Postponed until GCC 3.4.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.3
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-16 00:08
---
It was an accident that error18.C was committed on the branch. I've now removed it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16002
80 matches
Mail list logo
