https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100545
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 52829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52829=edit
fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #11 from Michael_S ---
(In reply to Michael_S from comment #10)
> BTW, the same ideas as in the code above could improve speed of division
> operation (on modern 64-bit HW) by factor of 3 (on Intel) or 2 (on AMD).
Did it.
On Intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105302
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> What exactly would be the file(s) being opened in this case?
The file that should be opened is the file internal/cpu.gox in the libgo build
directory.
> When can we expect the libgo cleanup needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105302
--- Comment #3 from Brecht Sanders
---
What exactly would be the file(s) being opened in this case?
When can we expect the libgo cleanup needed for MinGW(-w64) support?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105302
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I have no idea why you would get a "Permission denied" error opening an import
package.
That said I would not expect this to work. Somebody would have to clean up
libgo to support Windows.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104981
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
the coroutines code appears to be passing reasonable input to the CTOR build
call.
coroutines.cc:4922:
r = build_special_member_call (p, complete_ctor_identifier, NULL,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104981
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103963
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98056
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||me at xecycle dot info
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104020
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105104
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2022-03-30 00:00:00 |2022-4-18
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0, 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> ... so I must be missing important.
I must be missing *something* important.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105293
--- Comment #5 from Elmar Stellnberger ---
Created attachment 52827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52827=edit
2nd version of patch that should be useable under gcc-8-8.3.0/debian/patches/
Last time I reported that I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105304
Bug ID: 105304
Summary: ICE segfault using ad-hoc concept with -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104051
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-18
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105162
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52762|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105303
Bug ID: 105303
Summary: Assertion_Policy (Pre => Ignore) executes precondition
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100052
--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These failures are still occurring. The revision change doesn't appear to have
anything to do with it given it was the "daily bump".
Regressions on 11 (power8) on update from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104050
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Interesting that one needs -save-temps. Likely started with GCC
> 11.
I compared the simple from the FE with -save-temps (FAILS) and without (OK)
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105301
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
candidate patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593318.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105287
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
candidate patch for the ICE (I am not sure if there's anything needed on the
analyser side).
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593317.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103868
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105301
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Summary|[12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105292
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105301
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105302
--- Comment #1 from Brecht Sanders
---
P.S.: This attempt was with snapshot version 12-20220417
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105302
Bug ID: 105302
Summary: gccgo for Windows using MinGW-w64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105301
Bug ID: 105301
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'overload' in
coro_promise_type_found_p, at cp/coroutines.cc:516
31 matches
Mail list logo
