https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107184
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is where analyzer comes into hand really.
Maybe the warning should suggest using analyzer for more details? Even if they
are two different code bases for the warning and analyzer it seems like they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107189
Bug ID: 107189
Summary: Inconsistent range insertion implementations in
std::_Rb_tree in
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
mp;
std::same_as, V>;
-
g++ a.cpp -std=c++20
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20221008/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107187
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think a better way of implementing an abi specific attribute is in the shared
c++ abi forum and then have it accepted there too.
Then it could be the shared abi namespace like other c++ abi features are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107187
Bug ID: 107187
Summary: [feature request] Add `trivial_abi` attribute
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102275
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87659
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:705ed42a1ad950860f46c51216ff69dbe0f4857a
commit r13-3176-g705ed42a1ad950860f46c51216ff69dbe0f4857a
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105413
--- Comment #3 from Witold Baryluk ---
It works. Thank you.
Any chance this will be in gcc 12.x? I work a lot on Debian Linux, and I doubt
I will have gcc trunk or gcc 13 available any time soon.
Also weirdly gcc does not inline this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100040
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=100029
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100029
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a880f9a44ecad385d4273f96f76c5c900d716941
commit r10-11024-ga880f9a44ecad385d4273f96f76c5c900d716941
Author: José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100040
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a880f9a44ecad385d4273f96f76c5c900d716941
commit r10-11024-ga880f9a44ecad385d4273f96f76c5c900d716941
Author: José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100040
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1167c14d598021581e984cbe46273ade4bc54126
commit r11-10295-g1167c14d598021581e984cbe46273ade4bc54126
Author: José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100029
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1167c14d598021581e984cbe46273ade4bc54126
commit r11-10295-g1167c14d598021581e984cbe46273ade4bc54126
Author: José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100029
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07da38566232cc11901c3eeb9fc2860f02f2e31f
commit r12-8813-g07da38566232cc11901c3eeb9fc2860f02f2e31f
Author: José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100040
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07da38566232cc11901c3eeb9fc2860f02f2e31f
commit r12-8813-g07da38566232cc11901c3eeb9fc2860f02f2e31f
Author: José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107186
Bug ID: 107186
Summary: GCC rejects use of static constexpr member function
in noexcept complete-class context
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeff Hammond from comment #11)
> > program foo
> >use f
> >integer i
> >call test(i)
> > end program
> >
> > which specific subroutine is called based on TKR?
>
> I
=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-3175-20221007202551-g6ffbf87ca66-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107184
Bug ID: 107184
Summary: Copy warnings in dump files
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107147
--- Comment #4 from Arsen Arsenović ---
Ah, my bad, I had checking off in my 12.2.0 build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53675|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107147
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at aarsen dot me
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Hammond ---
> program foo
>use f
>integer i
>call test(i)
> end program
>
> which specific subroutine is called based on TKR?
I understand there is an ambiguity here, but what if I never make this call?
27 matches
Mail list logo
