https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85743
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86233
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
>From cp/decl.c:check_redeclaration_exception_specification
/* [except.spec]
If any declaration of a function has an exception-specification,
all declarations, including the definition and an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90493
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100231
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51851
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The example in CWG 1001 still doesn't compile (as you noted in PR 101402) and
CWG 1001 is still open. So no, this shouldn't be closed as resolved yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79334
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So this should now be correctly checked after
g:fedcf3c476aff7533741a1c61071200f0a38cf83 which fixes prune_clobbered_mems.
That uses vn_reference_may_trap which only does
case ARRAY_RANGE_REF:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87841
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||litteras at ukr dot net
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101936
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=32.507.0
> >
>
> Looking at LNT, the benchmark score is not back after the reversion of the
> patch.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101905
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b284053bb75661fc1bf13c275f3ba5364bb17608
commit r12-3069-gb284053bb75661fc1bf13c275f3ba5364bb17608
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92806, which changed state.
Bug 92806 Summary: Suboptimal diagnostic for concept that depends on non-bool
value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92806
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10 Regression] Missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84403
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
::cout << bar;
| ~ ^~ ~~~
|| |
|| foo
|std::ostream {aka std::basic_ostream}
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20210823/include/c++/12.0.0/iostream:39,
from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54174
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> That's more likely a register allocator issue.
Yes, LRA allocate registers from back to front which means change source code
like below will eliminate redundant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78157
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-31 00:00:00 |2021-8-23
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51851
--- Comment #4 from qingzhe huang ---
At least since release/gcc-10, this test code has been successfully compiled.
Can we change its status to Resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102022
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51851
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The case here is accepted since r10-7622:
c++: Function type and parameter type disagreements [PR92010]
This resolves parts of Core issues 1001/1322 by rebuilding the function type
of an instantiated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102022
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102022
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This part of the code looks like there could be a huge alias violation waiting
to happen
*(char**)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84186
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86233
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Now the reduced testcases are rejected for always.
I think they always were rejected by G++, so they were bad reductions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102023
Bug ID: 102023
Summary: Unnecessary duplication of mtcrf instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67499
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
And Clang output:
:5:13: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('std::ostream'
(aka 'basic_ostream') and 'foo')
std::cout << bar;
~ ^ ~~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90031
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krzyk240 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102020
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ankur saini :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:537878152ded8b7d271333b803b36c27a9aea8d2
commit r12-3076-g537878152ded8b7d271333b803b36c27a9aea8d2
Author: Ankur Saini
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99074
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Shouldn't this use __builtin_expect(!src_ptr, 0)? The FE is only supposed to
> call this function when we have a non-null pointer, which is true for
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102020
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102021
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-23
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102019
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95609
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #0)
> I would assume that the ABI ship has sailed, as usual, but if libstdc++'s
> span could instead have the layout:
>
> {
> T *p;
> size_t l;
> }
>
> ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101783
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, I cannot approve compiler patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101783
--- Comment #9 from qingzhe huang ---
OK, Thank you very much!
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: August 23, 2021 9:37 AM
To: nickhuan...@hotmail.com
Subject: [Bug c++/101783] unnecessary error when top
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91344
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Works for const or volatile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100057
--- Comment #32 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #31)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #30)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #29)
> > > I really want a fix to the script. Thank you !!!
> >
> > This is too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85743
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r265734 "Implement P0846R0, ADL and function templates."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86233
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The check was originally added by r106884 for PR c++/24817
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|modulus with input and |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97565
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
has_gimple_body_p really cares about the WPA unit (we should probably note that
in the comment). Here you seem to have function that is in the WPA translation
unit but lands in different partition and in that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101402
--- Comment #3 from qingzhe huang ---
bug 51851 has been fixed by latest release/gcc-10, but not this issue. So, I
suggest to change this bug status to New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102022
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
You could use *(void **) which GCC(!) treats conservative. But yes, *(char
**) should use memcpy to be truly portable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102022
Bug ID: 102022
Summary: incorrect code with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86233
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86233
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code was changed by r223778 to depend on -Wsystem-headers instead of
-Wpedantic, and the testcase for that commit suggests the current behaviour is
by design. But that testcase uses a redeclaration of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86389
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101783
--- Comment #7 from qingzhe huang ---
Jonathan,
Is it possible for you to review and commit my patch?
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577040.html).
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90787
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc97e736a5597ac1545b7f9069472117b6caa867
commit r12-3081-gbc97e736a5597ac1545b7f9069472117b6caa867
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92232
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Shorter testcase:
int myFunc(int);
template struct f;
f *t;
template int f1();
int t1 = f1();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92038
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Store-merging says
Starting active chain number 1 with statement:
MEM[(struct __as_base &)] ={v} {CLOBBER};
The base object is:
Recording immediate store from stmt:
MEM[(struct _Uninitialized *)] ={v}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42018
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89961
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7134a12cd633e8ffdcee1af7e294e9ab60647c0
commit r11-8892-gf7134a12cd633e8ffdcee1af7e294e9ab60647c0
Author: Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102006
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
It sounds like the usual upcasting of a link-only node which is strictly
non-conforming and can also result in TBAA issues but it's wide-spread. Note I
didn't look into the source at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102009
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100856
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63f68535550f77998ad907ba3d3be05a4324fbe8
commit r12-3067-g63f68535550f77998ad907ba3d3be05a4324fbe8
Author: Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99074
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/dyncast.cc
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/dyncast.cc
> @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ __dynamic_cast (const void *src_ptr,// object started
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102018
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Yes probably. I noticed it when upgrading newlib from 3.3.0 to 4.1.0, which
enabled new GCC tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86191
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note clang started to accept it in clang 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79334
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad665deeafd31238b537139385e1e80b40c10e0c
commit r12-3071-gad665deeafd31238b537139385e1e80b40c10e0c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102006
--- Comment #8 from Dmitriano ---
(In reply to Dmitriano from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > It sounds like the usual upcasting of a link-only node which is strictly
> > non-conforming and can also result in TBAA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101905
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:513c543bb5d97cc59ba393f2f0612324a789c50e
commit r11-8893-g513c543bb5d97cc59ba393f2f0612324a789c50e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 65335, which changed state.
Bug 65335 Summary: Potential optimization issue with 'tree-loop-vectorize'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65335
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101949
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm that failure. The test-case still crashes after Honza's patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102016
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nadult at fastmail dot fm
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83130
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||language.lawyer at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45975
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschulze at ivs dot cs.ovgu.de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101915
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42018
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Fixed by r7-4488
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87841
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102019
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87841
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90787
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
For reference, it's find_call_crossed_cheap_reg finding (or not) such
candidate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101947
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Not before next week, but there is nothing wrong in the patch itself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101964
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Mateus Morais Dias de Souza from comment #4)
> I figured it out. My build script was something like this:
> ```bash
> set -e
> gcc main.c -o main
> ./main
> ```
> for some reason gcc was not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16191
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
CWG 1710 was approved as a defect report in Kona 2016:
> Move to accept as Defect Reports the issues in P0575R1 (Core Language "ready"
> issues) and apply their proposed resolutions to the C++ working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99074
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It certainly shouldn't hurt. I think the middle-end predicts ptr == NULL
comparisons as unlikely, but __builtin_expect is stronger probability than that
and makes it clearer that it is extremely unlikely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102016
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102012
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-06-21 00:00:00 |2021-8-22
--- Comment #7 from Andrew
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
