https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95932
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
Add a more meaningful case.
$cat p.cc
template class a {};
template >
struct a < class b{}, struct b {}>;
$g++ p.cc
p.cc:2:28: error: expected ‘class’ or ‘typename’ before ‘>’ token
2 | template >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95927
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
Add a more meaningful case.
$cat p.cc
template struct a {};
class A {
struct a < struct x { void b ( ){}} >;
};
$g++ p.cc
p.cc:3:25: error: types may not be defined in template arguments
3 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95931
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
Add a more meaningful case.
$cat p.cc
void a() {
auto var = [] (auto, volatile b) {};
}
$g++ p.cc
p.cc: In function ‘void a()’:
p.cc:2:35: error: ‘b’ does not name a type
2 | auto var = [] (auto,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77510
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95955
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95956
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95945
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
Add a more meaningful case
$cat p.cc
int a ( auto struct x { int b ();}) {}
$g++ -w p.cc
p.cc:1:23: error: types may not be defined in parameter types
1 | int a ( auto struct x { int b ();}) {}
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95972
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
Hi, there.
I guess I shouldn't use C-Reduce to reduce my ICE on invalid code cases. After
using C-Reduce, the cases are more like a "garbage" code.
Here is a more readable code to reproduce the ICE.
$cat p.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96030
--- Comment #2 from Bu Le ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> The directive should be doing what
> #pragma omp declare simd
> does on the target and it is an ABI decision what exactly it does.
I tried this test case. But I haven't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
--- Comment #2 from Joseph C. Sible ---
Andrew Gierth posted this to the Lua mailing list:
> I think I see what's happening here, but I don't think I have an account
> on the gcc bug tracker to post it there (feel free to forward this).
> It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
--- Comment #4 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 48829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48829=edit
Smaller reproducer for the bug
I was able to reduce the size of the reproducer. I attached it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95420
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94100
--- Comment #2 from Hubert Tong ---
The following ICEs in a similar fashion:
internal compiler error: tree check: accessed elt 2 of 'tree_vec' with 1 elts
in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:15334
### SOURCE:
template struct ValListWithTypes {
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89310
--- Comment #7 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> rldicr is one of the insns generated by "*rotl3_mask", which
> recognises all canonical formulations of all our rotate-and-mask
> instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96042
Bug ID: 96042
Summary: Reference type of std::ranges::iota is __int128 with
-std=c++2a?!
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041
Bug ID: 96041
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/pr93423.f90 after
r11-1792
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #25 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #22)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> > For me tree optimized dump is correct, so likely a target issue.
>
> Yeah, I agree. I finally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|Compiled code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #24 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #23)
> cvise managed to shrink example down to the following:
For completeness assembly output difference is very clear now:
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96026
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #8)
> > At first, I thought that split_live_ranges_for_shrink_wrap() split this
> > nicely, but what I found is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> Right, that's why we need to add the copies before RA, so we don't have to
> look for unused regs. But we don't want to add the copies too early just
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96040
Bug ID: 96040
Summary: Compiled code causes SIGBUS at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
I added Solaris to the list of targets that see the error on line 5. Add it
wherever your target sees it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #23 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
cvise managed to shrink example down to the following:
"""
int b, c;
int a() __attribute__((noipa));
int a(int *d, int *f, int g) {
int e;
if (d == f)
e = 0;
else
e = 1;
switch (g) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96039
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90847
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hstong at ca dot ibm.com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #22 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> For me tree optimized dump is correct, so likely a target issue.
Yeah, I agree. I finally understood why memory loads disappear (duh!).
> @Sergei: Is GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96039
Bug ID: 96039
Summary: Missing diagnostic: C++11 alignment specifier on
bit-fields
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95115
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||claziss at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96038
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96038
Bug ID: 96038
Summary: Confirming implicitly type parameter causes an invalid
error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Ville Voutilainen
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb77f6f1b74aa200b70eb0a9e261c9f3b68294a0
commit r9-8716-geb77f6f1b74aa200b70eb0a9e261c9f3b68294a0
Author: Ville
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96037
Bug ID: 96037
Summary: [11 regression] ICE at tree-ssa-loop.c:414 after
r11-1782
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Ville Voutilainen
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9cba1b9a6333dcc6623865b7a0ed4d57cec4088e
commit r10-8418-g9cba1b9a6333dcc6623865b7a0ed4d57cec4088e
Author: Ville
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91807
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ville Voutilainen :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbca7a69f276e4829354f87f2747ebff36f6090e
commit r11-1793-gdbca7a69f276e4829354f87f2747ebff36f6090e
Author: Ville Voutilainen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 06:30:40PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> It isn't a matter of simply switching rules. It's a matter of bugs
> and whether the bug is reported. In the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88379
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] [Coarray]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88379
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66640d910595faded4425cfe2729ddf9d16e457b
commit r10-8417-g66640d910595faded4425cfe2729ddf9d16e457b
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96036
Bug ID: 96036
Summary: Please make std::optinal noexcept constructible when
possible
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91153
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93224
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14d4e7bc303a92f620eddcba9cef88da7e91514c
commit r10-8416-g14d4e7bc303a92f620eddcba9cef88da7e91514c
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93224
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91153
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14d4e7bc303a92f620eddcba9cef88da7e91514c
commit r10-8416-g14d4e7bc303a92f620eddcba9cef88da7e91514c
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93423
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b88744905a46be44ffa3c57d46080f601ae832b8
commit r11-1792-gb88744905a46be44ffa3c57d46080f601ae832b8
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9fb6f2b4f1321b059807ff6073156f07d9d376b
commit r11-1791-gd9fb6f2b4f1321b059807ff6073156f07d9d376b
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 05:24:36PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
>
> --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
> If it was enabled by default, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 71706, which changed state.
Bug 71706 Summary: [8/9 Regression] [Coarray] ICE on using sync images with
integer(kind<>4), with -fcoarray=lib -fcheck=bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71706
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
Bug 27766 depends on bug 71706, which changed state.
Bug 71706 Summary: [8/9 Regression] [Coarray] ICE on using sync images with
integer(kind<>4), with -fcoarray=lib -fcheck=bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71706
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71706
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 05:31:21PM +, skorzennik at cfa dot harvard.edu
wrote:
>
> I gave up on gfortran when the 64b record marker made it unusable for me. I'm
> not surprised it was fixed, but this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71706
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10b028c2813f683a8ebab7d36c9d0d05b49a710b
commit r8-10340-g10b028c2813f683a8ebab7d36c9d0d05b49a710b
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96034
sshannin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91153
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6f431bba531bac3212b66069cf0f9718edf0132
commit r11-1790-gc6f431bba531bac3212b66069cf0f9718edf0132
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93224
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6f431bba531bac3212b66069cf0f9718edf0132
commit r11-1790-gc6f431bba531bac3212b66069cf0f9718edf0132
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
--- Comment #7 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
Thanks for following up, Steve.
I gave up on gfortran when the 64b record marker made it unusable for me. I'm
not surprised it was fixed, but this pointed to poor decision making and
ignoring the need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
If it was enabled by default, you cannot negate it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #21 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #18)
> If the control flow goes through .L12:
>
> .L12:
> b .L3; return 0; (not interesting, fall through)
> ldi 1,%r28
>
> the return value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #20 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48828=edit
good.S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 05:10:51PM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
>
> --- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
> That means you cannot override a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #19 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48827=edit
bad.S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
That means you cannot override a default.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:10:38PM +, skorzennik at cfa dot harvard.edu
wrote:
>
> GCC is the single one that decides that old code is trash and needs to be
> rewritten. When 64b was introduced,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:53:22PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> > There is no -fno-allow-invalid-boz option. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96035
--- Comment #1 from Michel Palleau ---
Created attachment 48826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48826=edit
Proposal to create directories with process umask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96035
Bug ID: 96035
Summary: directories created when writing gcov data have
limited rights compared to umask
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
--- Comment #5 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
Hi Kargl,
I am not interested in a protracted religious discussion, I simply do not use
gfortran for my work (research), but need to provides it form my users
(Smithsonian HPC cluster) as part of my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #11)
> At some point in the past, GCC used to disable some instruction patterns
> depending on whether the binutils you're building against supports those
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94905
--- Comment #8 from Chris Moller ---
Created attachment 48825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48825=edit
Preprocessed testcase
gunzip then compile with
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I..-Wall -I sql -Werror -rdynamic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94905
Chris Moller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||moller at mollerware dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96034
Bug ID: 96034
Summary: missed optimization with extended registers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #5)
> (In reply to markeggleston from comment #4)
> > Regarding comment 2.
> >
> > Using -fallow-invalid-boz results in an ICE. I'll create a new PR.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #9)
> binutils-2.23.88.0.1-13.fc20.ppc64
>
> I can build a recent binutils release and retry the gcc-8 bootstrap with
> that tomorrow. But since gcc-9/10/11 all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
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=95952
--- Comment #10 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> So what is the instruction / builtin / anything where it fails?
I've managed to recreate the altivec_init_builtins ICE issue on a yellowdog
box. (4-core
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
You can find a quite long discussion about legacy at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/Ed8Mccy9zo8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
--- Comment #10 from Inbal Levi ---
Actually, you're right about the origin being [dcl.align]p5 here too, though
the test cases are different.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
--- Comment #2 from Sylvain Korzennik ---
Merci Dominique.
Will transmit info to MVAPICH2 ppl.
The configuration script needs to be changed, this is not "faulty code", it is
a test code part of the package configuration specifically to test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96033
Bug ID: 96033
Summary: error: The Fortran compiler gfortran will not compile
files that call the same routine with arguments of
different types.
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96030
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94569
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Both bugs are violations of [dcl.align] p5 though. The bug is not that GCC
doesn't follow [basic.align] p1 (it does) but that it allows alignas to weaken
the alignment later. GCC should not allow alignas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65685
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There are two facets to this. GCC allows alignas with a weaker alignment on a
type, and ignores it. GCC also allows alignas with a weaker alignment on an
object declaration, and reduces the alignment. In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96032
--- Comment #1 from Christian Friedl ---
Disclaimer: I posted a request for help regarding this exact feature on the
gcc-help list. (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-July/139110.html)
After reading through the list I came to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96032
Bug ID: 96032
Summary: Feature request: Add a way to format output from
--fdiagnostics-format=json
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96031
Bug ID: 96031
Summary: suboptimal codegen for store low 16-bits value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96029
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.5.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96028
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:105ecbea5f402713130fef4d41bb000e2d23493b
commit r11-1788-g105ecbea5f402713130fef4d41bb000e2d23493b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:053c88093a45f175f446eda009f3312e4e508514
commit r11-1787-g053c88093a45f175f446eda009f3312e4e508514
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90932
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96030
Bug ID: 96030
Summary: AArch64: Add an option to control 64bits simdclone of
math functions for fortran
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
