https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98877
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|12.0
--- Comment #5 from Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102011
Bug ID: 102011
Summary: Infinite loop in heron iteration when optimization is
enabled with gfortran 10.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101666
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100532
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE: tree |ICE: tree check: expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97795
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102014
Bug ID: 102014
Summary: [missed optimization] __uint128_t % uint64_t emits a
call to __umodti3 instead of div instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55549
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64537
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102014
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82803
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amohr at amohr dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98877
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is another example where GCC messes up:
#include "arm_neon.h"
uint8x16_t g(void);
uint8x16_t fun(uint8x16_t lo, uint8x16_t hi, uint8x16_t idx) {
uint8x16x2_t tab = { .val = {g(), g()} };
uint8x16_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102013
Bug ID: 102013
Summary: Incorrect aggregate initialization of union
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102011
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=90458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.kokovic at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 69331 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102010
Bug ID: 102010
Summary: ICE in stack-check-8.c in i386_pe_seh_unwind_emit
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80266
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 80266 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86713
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir at bashkirtsev dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unneccessary calls to |mulitple calls to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86901
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Last reconfirmed|2020-05-16 00:00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64537
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102012
Bug ID: 102012
Summary: GCC accepts any non-bool atomic constraint type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58897
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kamkaz at windowslive dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57448
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucenadeveloper at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98397
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:972eab51f53d1db26864ec7d62d40c2ff83407ec
commit r12-3060-g972eab51f53d1db26864ec7d62d40c2ff83407ec
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81880
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
extern "C" void abort(void);
struct tt
{
int *tt1 = new int{1};
int bucket_count() const {return *tt1;}
};
struct A {
template thread_local static tt m;
};
template thread_local tt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|struct containing default |[DR1454] struct containing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88162
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
ICC also rejects this at both -std=c++17 and -std=c++20:
(15): error: a nontype template parameter may not have class type
template class T> using nttp_t = typename decltype(
f(T()) )::type;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Eric.Deplagne at nerim dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98397
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15533
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60673
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This seems to be fixed in GCC 5 onwards (and recent Clang versions).
It was not fixed until GCC 7.5, 8.4 and 9+.
Here is a reduced testcase which shows it was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16191
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, this code started be accepted in GCC 10+; I suspect by the fix for PR
94057.
was that really expected?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62227
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++17 and C++20 modes no longer print move since GCC 7.
Most likely due to the patches to implement p0135.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0135r1.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015
Bug ID: 102015
Summary: [missed optimization] Small memory overhead in
_Rb_tree_impl (fix would require ABI break)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79334
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4)
> When you have the tree optimization bug fixed, this becomes an rtl
> optimization bug since rtl pre does the same as tree pre..
GCSE was fixed with PR 78812. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89979
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
LLVM's libc++ does not go into the 0 loop but still does not do a good job:
4294967295 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 4294967295 1
0 0 0 0 0 4294967295 4294967295 1
0 0 0 0 4294967295 4294967295
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59994
Bug 59994 depends on bug 60673, which changed state.
Bug 60673 Summary: c++11 static thread_local members may cause a segfault when
accessed via 'this->'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60673
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60702
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael at ensslin dot cc
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82947
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49001
--- Comment #6 from Mingye Wang ---
FWIW, the ticket about doing stuff to align the stack in the prologue is bug
54412. Apologies for the noisy emails, but thing is I can't do the see-also
thing here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57448
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55885
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note PR 30484 is for the -fwrapv issue with %.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16191
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the resolution of DR1710 (though it was supposed to be C++17+)
causes the code without the template to be accepted which means this should be
rejected for C++98, C++03, C++11 and C++14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82947
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
In GCC 11+ we get:
: In instantiation of 'struct foo >':
:16:19: required from here
:8:29: error: type 'main()::' is not a base type for type
'foo >'
8 | using Ts::operator()...;
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92494
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is fixed in GCC 10+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
Mingye Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur200126 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b08f7764cecd16cba84944f2a8b67a7f73a7ce7
commit r12-3059-g9b08f7764cecd16cba84944f2a8b67a7f73a7ce7
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101296
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
"every access" means that we no longer track individual bases+offsets+sizes and
everything matching the base/ref alias set will be considered conflicting.
I planned to implement smarter merging of accesses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92073
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61991
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC, clang and ICC all have this same behavior in that if y is not used, the y
is not initialized or deconstructed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86959
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang ICEs with -std=c++20 :).
GCC ICEs starting in GCC 9:
: In substitution of 'template template using Alias
= Outer< >::Inner [with T = {void};
= void]':
:18:38: required from here
:8:11: internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49001
Mingye Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur200126 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66573773/is-there-a-reason-for-8-bytes-of-size-overhead-in-libstdc-stdmultiset-map
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70889
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testcase:
#include
#include
std::atomic seq_;
std::size_t value;
auto load()
{
std::size_t copy;
std::size_t seq0;
do
{
seq0 = seq_.load();
if (!seq0) continue;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015
--- Comment #2 from Kamil Kaznowski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66573773/is-there-a-reason-for-8-bytes-
> of-size-overhead-in-libstdc-stdmultiset-map
This is my post, I forgot to post a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101257
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77312
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is fixed in GCC 8:
if (SAVE_EXPR <(struct LambdaHolder *) this> != 0B)
{
try
{
LambdaHolder::~LambdaHolder (SAVE_EXPR <(struct LambdaHolder *)
this>);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> On Linux/x86-64 with -m32, r12-3059 gave
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/pr101949 c_lto_pr101949_0.o-c_lto_pr101949_1.o execute -O2
> -fipa-pta -flto -flto-partition=1to1
It also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30484
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #10)
> There is still a bug for the -fwrapv case, where clearly both INT_MIN / -1
> and INT_MIN % -1 should be well defined, but probably the extra checks
> if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86234
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
If I place "A t;" before main(), then ICC, clang and MSVC all accept the
code. That seems out a bit backwards for me but I don't know the C++ standard
really. But it might point out why GCC is accepting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101922
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f93f0868919ab32bfbc24adb40158298031a4d58
commit r12-3063-gf93f0868919ab32bfbc24adb40158298031a4d58
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Fri Aug
91 matches
Mail list logo
