https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.3.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyong at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100391
Bug ID: 100391
Summary: 128 bit arithmetic --- many unnecessary instructions
when extracting smaller parts
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100392
Bug ID: 100392
Summary: compiling result of "g++ -E -fdirectives-only" causes
"error: stray ‘#’ in program" if no newline at EOF
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Samples: 847K of event 'cycles:u', Event count (approx.): 839745061761
Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Symbol
95.05%804298 cc1 cc1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I need to fix libstdc++ to accept the code with a deprecated warning, rather
than reject it. I think it only rejects it with -pedantic but it should still
be fixed to work until the deprecated constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
Bug ID: 100393
Summary: Very slow compilation of switch statement with
thousands of cases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Frank B. Brokken from comment #4)
> Dear ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org, you wrote:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
> >
> > Patrick Palka changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100387
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100382
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80bbb7ff83d81544b09820428bdd7db9f50fe362
commit r12-378-g80bbb7ff83d81544b09820428bdd7db9f50fe362
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Like I already suggested in comment 3:
Either the overloads should conflict because of [over.load]/2.3 (and the
definition of Derived should be ill-formed) or they should be hidden and not
visible in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Classically it needs two DCE passes, the first removes the call LHS, the second
then no longer considers the call necessary because of EH. But even with that
fixed there are subsequent passes breaking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|3.4.6, 4.3.5|
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
Bug ID: 100395
Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> So, something like this reflects the current state:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/omp-low.c b/gcc/omp-low.c
> index 7b122059c6e..a0561800977 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Bug ID: 100394
Summary: wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
That then still shows problems with the pure function and -O2, but with
standard
C++ this then works:
struct S {
int foo(int i) const { if (i) throw 42; return 0; }
};
int __attribute__((noinline))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100217
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f48c335d36674f90046b2823f0ac1c0545dc082
commit r12-379-g4f48c335d36674f90046b2823f0ac1c0545dc082
Author: Ilya Leoshkevich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
--- Comment #1 from Dannii Willis ---
Okay, I've confirmed the regression myself, using functions_unsafe.i:
gcc-8: real 0m11.450s
gcc-10: real4m46.472s
And for comparison
clang: real 0m0.711s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67740
Sebastien Bardeau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bardeau at iram dot fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100352
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:107ca5c2fd6dcb53c3cba788ae388e7e4e789ed8
commit r11-8343-g107ca5c2fd6dcb53c3cba788ae388e7e4e789ed8
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I guess that's already done, so it has to be fixed in other ways, like by
keeping the partial sum when decreasing the size in
for (unsigned j = 0; j < i; j++)
{
if (min[j].m_count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
Jochen Roemmler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jochen447 at concept dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27397
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
commit r12-380-gfd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Feb 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #35 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f570621352970945db657455e0570208ea2d70e
commit r12-381-g3f570621352970945db657455e0570208ea2d70e
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Mar 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #34 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
commit r12-380-gfd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Feb 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100383
jyong at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100352
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8)
> Follow up to PR100352,
That's this PR and not the one which caused it. Correct is (comment #6):
> Issue introduced for PR99529 in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569429.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100367
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Internal compiler error |[11/12 Regression] Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100360
--- Comment #4 from aliaga at uji dot es ---
Hi,
I have two different compiled versions of GMP. Initially, it is possible that I
tried to use the wrong version, but the simplest code doesn't use GMP,
therefore it doesn't matter the version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100382
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100392
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|compiling result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
--- Comment #2 from Albert Astals Cid ---
People that know more C++ than me, told me
std::visit appears unconstrained to Variants...&& being actual std::variants
(in case you inherited one, I guess), so std::visit, as an unconstrained
perfect
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
