https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29186
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard B. Kreckel from comment #20)
> So, Joseph explained that the code should execute as expected, at least with
> -frounding-math as a workaround. However, with GCC 4.4 it is still not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18374
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> I think this is another one of those meta-bugs that falls victim to the
> change in the way meta-bugs are done; swapping the "blocks" and "depends on"
> fields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27682
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Fred J. Tydeman from comment #9)
> 4.3.2-7 still has problems (even with -frounding-math).
>
> A more complete test can be found at:
> http://www.tybor.com/tflt2int.c
I get 183 failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91911
Bug ID: 91911
Summary: Strange interaction between CTAD and decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91910
Bug ID: 91910
Summary: Debug mode: there is a racing condition between
destructors of iterator and the associated container.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91910
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems like this is a bug in the testcase rather than libstdc++.
>exemplifying concurrent destruction of iterator and container
That seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Because once the container is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91910
--- Comment #2 from leon ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Seems like this is a bug in the testcase rather than libstdc++.
>
> >exemplifying concurrent destruction of iterator and container
> That seems like a disaster waiting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91909
Bug ID: 91909
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-4.c fails on
armeb after r275898
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe the ranking needs additional wording, thus input from CWG.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
A similar testcase from the standard:
int g(const int &);
int g(int);
int i;
int k = g(i); // ambiguous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91905
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Does -mno-vsx make it work? How about -mcpu=power7?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91892
Bug ID: 91892
Summary: [5.x,6.x ARM] Having a global pair
causes code gen bug for init list of pair
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91894
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91894
Bug ID: 91894
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected tree that
contains ‘decl common’ structure, have ‘integer_cst’
in tree_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2679 since r275982
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91893
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91893
--- Comment #2 from alex_lop at walla dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I believe the type you get is actually a 33-bit type and thus the _Generic
> doesn't apply. IIRC "long" bitfields are a GCC extension.
I am not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91888
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
not sure if debug-prefix-map applies to dwo filenames... (well, appearantly it
does not). -gsplit-dwarf isn't really very well maintained.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
Bug ID: 91891
Summary: std::function with lambda default initializer in
aggregate construction causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91893
Bug ID: 91893
Summary: Bit-field larger than 32 bits has invalid type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91895
--- Comment #1 from hehaochen at hotmail dot com
---
I think maybe the problem has already been fixed since gcc 5?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91881
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91876
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You didn't say you are using devtoolset. That uses a different linking model,
so it's correct that your program is linked to the gcc-4 libraries. Devtoolset
is not supported by the upstream project, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91885
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91892
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bindels ---
Good to know. Thanks for the quick reply!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91189
--- Comment #3 from Nicola Fontana ---
This is still an issue with gcc-9.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91895
Bug ID: 91895
Summary: Compile the code with -O1 or -O2 is slower than with
-O3 and -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91885
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91896
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91894
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
Or this:
% gcc-10.0.0-alpha20190922 -O2 -fno-early-inlining --param
ipa-cp-value-list-size=0 -w -c gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr60647-2.c
during RTL pass: expand
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr60647-2.c: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91899
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin ---
Godbolt playground: https://godbolt.org/z/UA_Xsm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80243
--- Comment #10 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91877
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 25 13:53:04 2019
New Revision: 276127
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276127=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91877 - ICE with converting member of packed struct.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91898
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 46941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46941=edit
another example
thanks, yup.
I had a slightly different example ready to go (attached)
Rather than a single switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91898
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91877
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91901
Bug ID: 91901
Summary: constexpr stack array not optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82542
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
--- Comment #12 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #11)
> Those -isystem paths are the *non-sysroot* kind of paths for headers for a
> cross compiler.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to fully understand the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91903
Bug ID: 91903
Summary: vec_ctf altivec intrinsic can cause ICE on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
To clarify what I said in comment #1: with the growing coverage of middle-end
warnings, making the diagnostic pragmas work more reliably is increasingly
important. I don't think I'll have the time to work on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91899
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91900
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
mipsisa64r6 does not have the lo register. So clobbering it does not make
sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91902
Bug ID: 91902
Summary: "Where has __float128 gone" error during "making" gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82542
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019, nsz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> e.g. currently there is now way to tell what _FloatN
> variants gcc understands, even though -fdump-translation-unit
> with empty tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91904
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91894
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
*** Bug 91894 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91898
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
For purposes of discussion, let's make a full example:
% cat ex.c
int get(int);
int foo (int a, int *ary)
{
//void *labelsy[] = {&, &, &, &_end};
//int ary[] = {0, 1, 2, 3};
int i = 0;
int ret = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91904
Bug ID: 91904
Summary: Arduino IDE will not upload program
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91896
Bug ID: 91896
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy,
at tree-vect-stmts.c:1687
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't consider it safely backportable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
void f(int*) { }
void f(const int* const &) { }
void g(int* p) { f(p); }
: In function 'void g(int*)':
:3:21: error: call of overloaded 'f(int*&)' is ambiguous
3 | void g(int* p) { f(p); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91900
Bug ID: 91900
Summary: [10 regression] mipsisa64r6-*-* rejects lo clobber
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91896
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 25 13:09:25 2019
New Revision: 276123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276123=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-09-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91896
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91896
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
For some reason
if (ncopies > 1
&& STMT_VINFO_RELEVANT (reduc_stmt_info) <= vect_used_only_live
&& (use_stmt_info = loop_vinfo->lookup_single_use (phi_result))
&&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Peter Bindels from comment #0)
> https://godbolt.org/z/_XP2No
>
> Confirmed working on 6.x, 8.x and 9.x, but broken on all 7.x available on
> Godbolt. Example is mostly minimized, but not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91897
Bug ID: 91897
Summary: Very poor optimization on large attribute vector_size
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alex_lop at walla dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91891
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76739
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91880
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91893
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also see PR37560:
Why do you think the type should be int instead of int:1? The conclusion
from C90 DRs was that bit-fields have their own types, and from C99 DRs
was to leave whether they have their own
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91899
Bug ID: 91899
Summary: Merge constant literals
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91895
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91898
Bug ID: 91898
Summary: [optimization] switch statements for state machines
could be better
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91902
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91904
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jordan.mayes21 at hotmail dot
co.u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91906
Bug ID: 91906
Summary: std::timed_mutex::try_lock_until may not wait for
timeout to expire when called with user-defined clock
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91899
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> unless the compiler somehow proves that overlap is not
> observable?
Oh, now I see. Here's a valid example:
static const char data1[] = "test";
static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91902
--- Comment #2 from Georgy ---
No, I have two directories. One has name "gcc-4.9.2" and the other has name
"gcc4.9.2". The source code is inside "gcc-4.9.2". The folder "gcc4.9.2" is
empty and was made specially to use it as "prefix".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91703
--- Comment #2 from Jordan ---
Thank you, how do I do this? I am using the Arduino IDE? Currently using the
programmer AVR ISP Mkii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91880
--- Comment #3 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Do you have any guess how old is the issue?
I guess it's been there since gcc-5 when both call0 ABI support and HW loops
optimization were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91452
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91902
--- Comment #3 from Georgy ---
No, I have to directories which have name "gcc-9.2.0" and "gcc9.2.0". The
source code is inside "gcc-9.2.0", (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> (In reply to Georgy from comment #0)
> > After configuring gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91905
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 46944
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46944=edit
Assembly file demonstrating miscompilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91905
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91703
--- Comment #3 from Jordan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Guessing some bits. Note GCC 5 is no longer supported, you should look for
> a newer version of the AVR toolchain.
I am very sorry, but I do not know how to do that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91879
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91902
--- Comment #4 from Georgy ---
The comment to the head of problem. The version I mentioned first was 9.2.0 but
actually I worked with 4.9.2. My bad.
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
