https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alx at kernel dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 104843, which changed state.
Bug 104843 Summary: signed overflow in compute_const_anchors, at cse.cc:1180
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110179
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Florian Weimer :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:104b09005229ef48a79a33511ea192bb3ec3c415
commit r14-2426-g104b09005229ef48a79a33511ea192bb3ec3c415
Author: Florian Weimer
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110288
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The apparent discrepancy between fndecl and the actual arguments in the call
may be a result from the following block in gfc_conv_procedure_call after:
7390 /* Deferred length dummies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110179
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am shocked that optabs.h is not included for PLUGIN_HEADERS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55517=edit
Draft patch
This seems to work for this case, but I'm not sure how reliable it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla at tecnocode dot
co.uk,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107013
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Bug ID: 110611
Summary: X86 is not honouring POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED in m32
code.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> uint64_t is neither Pmode nor word_mode here. POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is
> only relevant if POINTER_SIZE is narrower than Pmode.
So, just pilot-error, then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce this but it seems like the modula2 build also suffers from
> the same issue, see PR110284.
>
> David, what exactly are you trying to build? Can you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I guess you mean insn-opinit.h, not internal-fn.h. internal-fn.h is in the
> GCC Git repo.
Yeah sorry! I did mean insn-opinit.h
> We are already installing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #61 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #60)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #59)
> > after ifcvt we end up with:
> >
> > _162 = chrg_init_70 * iftmp.8_76;
> > _164 = ABS_EXPR <_162>;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110217
--- Comment #2 from mx682x at gmail dot com ---
I see, thank you for you input.
> Apart from that, the proposed patch won't work for indirect addressing, or
> when the compiler is turning direct addresses to indirect addresses (using
> CSE etc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
It seems that the C++ FE change in comment#13 causes libreoffice to fail to
build with
[ 553s]
/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/libreoffice-7.5.4.2/workdir/UnpackedTarball/skia/include/private/SkVx.h:
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> It seems that the C++ FE change in comment#13 causes libreoffice to fail to
> build with
>
> [ 553s]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
uint64_t is neither Pmode nor word_mode here. POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is only
relevant if POINTER_SIZE is narrower than Pmode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> intenral-fn.h is generated at gcc build-time.
I guess you mean insn-opinit.h, not internal-fn.h. internal-fn.h is in the GCC
Git repo.
> I'm not sure we want to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e6a948cd22f2f142cdc828296f78c7af9e283c8
commit r13-7553-g1e6a948cd22f2f142cdc828296f78c7af9e283c8
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce this but it seems like the modula2 build also suffers from
> the same issue, see PR110284.
>
> David, what exactly are you trying to build? Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
intenral-fn.h is generated at gcc build-time. I'm not sure we want to 'install'
it with a gcc install. Might make more sense to trigger a the generation of it
when building this gcc-plugin. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
--- Comment #8 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll try adding to one of the header file lists in gcc's makefile. Probably the
INTERNAL_FN_H one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-10
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63ae6bc60c0f67fb2791991bf4b6e7e0a907d420
commit r14-2407-g63ae6bc60c0f67fb2791991bf4b6e7e0a907d420
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Thu Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #61)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #60)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #59)
> > > after ifcvt we end up with:
> > >
> > > _162 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #63 from Tamar Christina ---
> > It looks like `-fno-tree-pre` does the trick, but then of course, messes up
> > elsewhere. The conditional statement seem to stay in the most complicated
> > form possible in scalar code.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #64 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #63)
> > > It looks like `-fno-tree-pre` does the trick, but then of course, messes
> > > up
> > > elsewhere. The conditional statement seem to stay in the most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110611
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #0)
> the x86 backend sets:
> gcc/config/i386/i386.h:#define POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED 1
> which ought, according to gccint mean that pointers get sign-extended...
erm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712
--- Comment #33 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #32)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #31)
> > Will propose a backport to 13 in ~2 weeks.
>
> Any news on the backport? There is aim to release GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|13.2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Arndt ---
Sounds good, I would agree on your solution as well. So since it's not related
to clang and can be reproduced with gcc is there a fix planned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110006
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-10
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110591
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 55510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55510=edit
untested patch.
Under testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110605
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 55511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55511=edit
res file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #60 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #59)
> after ifcvt we end up with:
>
> _162 = chrg_init_70 * iftmp.8_76;
> _164 = ABS_EXPR <_162>;
> _167 = -_164;
> _ifc__166 = distbb_74 < iftmp.0_97 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88873
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12b78b0b42d53019eb2c500d386094194e90ad16
commit r14-2406-g12b78b0b42d53019eb2c500d386094194e90ad16
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 55512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55512=edit
another testcase
This one needs -mavx2 -mf16c -mfma -fPIC -O2 -std=c++17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97585
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to matoro from comment #9)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 55504 [details]
> > Proposed patch.
> >
> > Can someone please bootstrap and test the attached patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
Bug ID: 110610
Summary: File insn-opinit.h not installed ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: plugins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Our precondition checks never throw, so those functions never throw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
I can see cprop1 adds the REG_EQUAL note:
(insn 22 21 23 4 (set (reg:V8HI 100)
(zero_extend:V8HI (vec_select:V8QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:V4QI 98) 0)
(parallel [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> I can see cprop1 adds the REG_EQUAL note:
>
> (insn 22 21 23 4 (set (reg:V8HI 100)
> (zero_extend:V8HI (vec_select:V8QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:V4QI 98) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> > and simplify_replace_rtx simplifies the above to:
> >
> > (gdb) p debug_rtx (src)
> > (const_vector:V8HI [
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110592
Taylor R Campbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||campbell+gcc-bugzilla@mumbl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #100 from Alexander Klepikov
---
Created attachment 55513
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55513=edit
Arithmetic right shift late expanding
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #99)
> Meanwhile, here's my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110268
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca10aaa3954af3dab56eccc208c90273c2b1732
commit r14-2418-geca10aaa3954af3dab56eccc208c90273c2b1732
Author: Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #65 from Tamar Christina ---
> >
> > In which case ifcvt could move the cond to just before the first shared
> > statement?
>
> I don't think PRE "knows" where the operation was created from since it's
> transforms from a global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110268
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110205
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Nearly a month later, the current list of clang warnings for the range code is:
../../trunk.year/gcc/gimple-range-cache.h:140:17: warning: private field
'm_estimate' is not used [-Wunused-private-field]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110179
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110612
Bug ID: 110612
Summary: text-art: four clang warnings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c60368ab5706a870a1a3be190acc4d673672c30
commit r14-2421-g2c60368ab5706a870a1a3be190acc4d673672c30
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102003
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Likely started with r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7, it was rejected before the
> revision anyway.
With all branches up to 13-branch, I see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #11 from matoro ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> (In reply to matoro from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 55504 [details]
> > > Proposed patch.
> > >
> > > Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110354
Bug 110354 depends on bug 110355, which changed state.
Bug 110355 Summary: std::format("{}", 1e-7) returns "1e-07" instead of "1e-7"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110355
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110355
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d308b11fa94728507984b4ccc949219511273ab6
commit r11-10903-gd308b11fa94728507984b4ccc949219511273ab6
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110615
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110615
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Julien Jorge from comment #0)
> The int <-> float conversions
> do not happen with current HEAD but I believe it is due to a side effect of
> cmath transitively including stdlib.h.
No, it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110504
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167
Bug 104167 depends on bug 110504, which changed state.
Bug 110504 Summary: std::format("{:%S}", duration>(4))
returns "02.0" instead of "02"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110504
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110613
Bug ID: 110613
Summary: optimization about combined store of adjacent
bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Klose ---
I'll apply the proposed patch for the next gcc-13 Debian upload, then reporting
back test results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
Bug ID: 110614
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in vect_supportable_dr_alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110615
Bug ID: 110615
Summary: std::abs converts integers to floats and back
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110609
--- Comment #2 from Andres Freund ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 110546 ***
Are they really the same? This bug happens at -O0 and requires -fPIC and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110616
Bug ID: 110616
Summary: [14 regression] ICE after r14-2117-gdd86a5a69cbda4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110523
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I confirm ICE gone away for json-3.11.2. json-3.11.2 still odes not compile
same as in https://gcc.gnu.org/PR110580
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Bug ID: 110617
Summary: RFE: Add a diagnostic-only variant of nonnull
attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
Bug ID: 110618
Summary: Dependency between arguments when one is allocatable
array whose dummy is intent(out)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This may be a dupe of PR110616 (or vice-versa).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
[1]:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Style_and_Conventions#Bugs_in_the_user_program
[2]: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-July/149893.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Bug ID: 110619
Summary: Dangling pointer returned from constexpr function
converts in nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>but it is not nullptr.
Or is it just undefined so it could be considered a nullptr ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I think according to https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.stc#general-4 the function
shall return an "invalid pointer valued". And nullptr is not considered such.
And if one modifies the function slightly (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
Bug ID: 110620
Summary: spurious array-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
