https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100376
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108222
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108222
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108222
--- Comment #8 from cqwrteur ---
then what's wrong with me myself submitting patches to fix them? tbh. i would
like to help maintaining future windows support for libstdc++ since i think i
am probably more familiar than you on windows.
Like nt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108227
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108169
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.5
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108227
Bug ID: 108227
Summary: Unnecessary division when looping over array with size
of elements not a power of two
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108222
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103445
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42011
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108224
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #3)
> > Great! I just saw it is the same for random(), srandom(), initstate(),
> > setstate()
> >
> > Is there an easy way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108210
--- Comment #4 from niXman ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #2)
> Is this before or after this patch set was applied?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-December/609116.html
I think it can be so because of unspecified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81649
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> That doesn't look correct to me, as it is the option that ensures that the
> executables are linked against such a library, after all, it is the only
> purpose of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105858
--- Comment #7 from Brecht Sanders
---
Any update on this?
This issue makes GCC12 really slow on Windows because PCH support doesn't work.
If mman-win32 support could be made to work it might solve this issue. The
problem is that this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
--- Comment #12 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #10)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #5)
> > I think the copy to bin behavior should be removed. It should be just like
> > normal linux distribution. 64 bit dlls in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
--- Comment #13 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #12)
> (In reply to nightstrike from comment #10)
> > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #5)
> > > I think the copy to bin behavior should be removed. It should be just like
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danakj at orodu dot net
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108230
--- Comment #2 from David Shin ---
The preprocessed source is 3.5M, which exceeds the file attachment size limit
of 1000K.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88860
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
2022-12-26 Jonathan Grant
* gcc/doc/extend.texi: Bugzilla 88860 - Add attribute format printf
example
>From 1668dc58206428ee92ff142bafb5f545dba029ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonathan Grant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant ---
printf("sizeof time_t %ld\n", sizeof(time_t));
Another example, but suggesting the same %ld from a sizeof
broken.c:34:29: error: format ‘%ld’ expects argument of type ‘long int’, but
argument 2 has type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90205
--- Comment #11 from Jonny Grant ---
That last comment was using
gcc (Ubuntu 12.2.0-3ubuntu1) 12.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108210
--- Comment #3 from niXman ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0)
> /home/cqwrteur/toolchains_build/gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++20/tzdb.cc:565:5:
> error: 'mutex' does not name a type; did you mean 'minutes'?
> 565 | mutex infos_mutex;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108229
Bug ID: 108229
Summary: [13 Regression] unprofitable STV transform
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108230
Bug ID: 108230
Summary: assert() spuriously activates maybe-initialized
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88860
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
2022-12-26 Jonathan Grant
* gcc/doc/extend.texi: Bugzilla 88860 - Clarify online manual
infelicities
>From 8b142ad8973dc67289e197e30966490a944e4819 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonathan Grant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88944
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108210
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.nixman at autistici dot org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106395
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108210
--- Comment #5 from niXman ---
(In reply to niXman from comment #4)
> (In reply to nightstrike from comment #2)
> > Is this before or after this patch set was applied?
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-December/609116.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94924
--- Comment #4 from rhalbersma ---
Is there any chance that this bug fix can be backported to gcc 10 also?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108230
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108202
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88997
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
2022-12-26 Jonathan Grant
* gcc/doc/extend.texi: Bugzilla 88860 - Clarify online manual
infelicities
>From 8b142ad8973dc67289e197e30966490a944e4819 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonathan Grant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88997
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> 2022-12-26 Jonathan Grant
> * gcc/doc/extend.texi: Bugzilla 88860 - Clarify online manual
> infelicities
>
>
> >From
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100427
--- Comment #11 from nightstrike ---
Possible duplicate of PR39947
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93480
--- Comment #9 from rhalbersma ---
Could this fix also be back-ported to gcc 10?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Regression testing looks good. The patch wiggles on the error messages given
for:
pr85779.f90
class_result_4.f90
In both cases they are reasonable. I don't think we need any new test cases
since we are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108210
--- Comment #6 from niXman ---
(In reply to niXman from comment #5)
> (In reply to niXman from comment #4)
> > (In reply to nightstrike from comment #2)
> > > Is this before or after this patch set was applied?
> > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96412
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
Just posted this on bug 90205 but maybe more appropriate here
gcc (Ubuntu 12.2.0-3ubuntu1) 12.2.0
Another example, but suggesting the same %ld from a sizeof
printf("sizeof time_t %zu\n", sizeof(time_t));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107548
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108228
Bug ID: 108228
Summary: /usr/lib/pa20_64/dld.sl: Unsatisfied code symbol
'_ZN9__gnu_cxx21zoneinfo_dir_ov errideEv'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108230
--- Comment #5 from David Shin ---
Indeed, no warning on trunk! Sorry, should have checked trunk version before
reporting this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108231
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
A little more reduced:
```
namespace g {
extern "C" void free(void *);
}
using g::free;
extern "C" void free (void *);
void foo1 (void *p) { free (p); }
void (*foo2) (void *) = free;
extern "C" {
void foo3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102993
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103327
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108230
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Shin from comment #2)
> The preprocessed source is 3.5M, which exceeds the file attachment size
> limit of 1000K.
You can compress it since it is above the max attachment size limit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108230
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Shin from comment #5)
> Indeed, no warning on trunk! Sorry, should have checked trunk version before
> reporting this.
No it is a good thing to report as we might want to get it fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108231
Bug ID: 108231
Summary: g++ mistakenly reports ambiguity between equivalent
function declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
55 matches
Mail list logo
