https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98464
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98476
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98476
Bug ID: 98476
Summary: OpenMP offload syntax restriction
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So if that bisection is accurate, the only way this could be failing would be
if something with a deprecated attribute is being used.
Maybe some printfs in warn_deprecated_use? But again, I'm a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 49854 [details]
> gcc11-pr98461.patch
>
> Untested fix.
+ if (GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode) == 32)
Yes, and i missed this part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:52:03AM +, xiao@compiler-dev.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
>
> --- Comment #5 from xiao@compiler-dev.com ---
> (In reply to Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #5 from xiao@compiler-dev.com ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4)
> Created attachment 49856 [details]
> Fix for the PR
>
> Thank you for the report on this problem.
>
> The attached patch fixes the problem and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98475
Bug ID: 98475
Summary: Class template argument deduction for alias templates
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
Bart Janssens changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bart at bartjanssens dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|incorrect results using |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Hurchalla ---
If I change only the optimization level in the compile command to -O1, then
echo prints the correct result 0.
I have a non-minimal (but still very small) test file on godbolt at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98474
Bug ID: 98474
Summary: incorrect results using __uint128_t
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93685
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe37f4aac179e8a7489fa5492dd56dce95f094b2
commit r9-9141-gfe37f4aac179e8a7489fa5492dd56dce95f094b2
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
--- Comment #9 from Chinoune ---
Since no one is going to backport the fix, should we close it as "won't fix"?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> That's why you're asked to provide the output of 'gcc -v' by the
> instructions at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ (because we can't guess that your
> 10.2.0 is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98473
Bug ID: 98473
Summary: std::vector::insert(pos, first, last) doesn't
compile for T which has a deleted assignment operator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97612
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eeb145317b42d5203056851435457d9189a7303d
commit r11-6365-geeb145317b42d5203056851435457d9189a7303d
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:feae0af82753e06fbff6103da5fbb3b28e1ddbd7
commit r11-6364-gfeae0af82753e06fbff6103da5fbb3b28e1ddbd7
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95361
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98472
Bug ID: 98472
Summary: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor,
at fortran/trans-array.c:7352
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98467
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I debugged a bit in when we decide this function is const.
That appears to be in gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c:
/* Return true if T is a pointer pointing to memory location that is local
for the function (that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98206
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98206
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase without any headers:
template
struct Base1
{
char c1;
};
template
struct Base2
{
char c2;
auto () const { return static_cast (*this); }
};
struct X : public Base1, public Base2
{
X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463
--- Comment #3 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
While I initially flagged this as a regression in gcc 11, it's indeed a latent
gcc bug which predates gcc 11. What makes it for my specific test case a
regression is because now tuple use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97543
--- Comment #11 from Gustavo Walbon ---
Michael,
Works with GCC v10.
I backported this patch for the Alpine[1] gcc v10 and then I used the libgcc
package to test. I have used the binutils v2.35.1 with the warning of the GNU
Attribute and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93456
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49853
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49853=edit
gcc11-pr56719.patch
Untested patch to implement the #c8 optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
Sorry for the noise, but as this gives big reductions in compilation time it is
quite important to me (and probably other big module based projects).
I just realised that I mixed up gfc_symtree->name and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97012
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I have bisected this now and it turns out, the regression was introduced by:
commit eede1a6bf3a4f33fa5afef9e4dfc80c4dd89eeb3
Author: Nick Clifton
Date: Mon Jun 18 10:39:01 2018 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mingw-w64-x86_64, windows |mingw-w64-x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.2.0 |11.0
Known to work|10.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98469
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=96919
--- Comment #12 from Bhavana Kilambi
---
Created attachment 49851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49851=edit
a tweak to fix the issue
Hi Martin, My sincere apologies for the delay in replying and also for
uploading a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 49850
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49850=edit
Gentoo gcc 10.2.0-r2 patches
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Daniel Santos from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98461
--- Comment #4 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> Could you mark this bug as blocks PR98375
Done?
> ... waiting for Stage 1 of GCC 12 to be applied.)
So. the next gcc should have a fix? Fantastic! Will it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98471
Bug ID: 98471
Summary: libstdc++ fails to build with clang on windows because
of filesystem bug
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
44 matches
Mail list logo
