https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88623
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For a cross from x86_64-linux-gnu to aarch64-linux-gnu produces:
if (ptr->x_aarch64_branch_protection_string)
fprintf (file, "%*s%s (%s)\n",
indent, "",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99717
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97585
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||memmerto at ca dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95661
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89233
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 88615 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88094
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||6.1.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89996
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55509
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55509=edit
x86_64 testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|avr |avr x86_64
Summary|[avr] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110591
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> I guess we can add a peephole for this, middle-end optimizer doesn't know
> cmpccxadd set EFLAGS same as cmp.
We already have a peephole for cmpxchg, for cmpxchg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106966
matoro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matoro_gcc_bugzilla@matoro.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101469
--- Comment #10 from Rin Okuyama ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> Sorry for being late for 2 years with this.
...
> Unfortunately GCC 10.5 has just been released recently and that was the last
> version 10.
> So the patch will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101469
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Rin Okuyama from comment #8)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #7)
>
> Hi Oleg. Thank you very much for your great work!
>
> I've tested your patch with GCC 10.4.0 in this weekend, and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101469
--- Comment #8 from Rin Okuyama ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #7)
Hi Oleg. Thank you very much for your great work!
I've tested your patch with GCC 10.4.0 in this weekend, and it perfectly
worked:
- testcase attached to comment #0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110591
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
I guess we can add a peephole for this, middle-end optimizer doesn't know
cmpccxadd set EFLAGS same as cmp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110170
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d41a57c46df6f8f7dae0c0a8b349e734806a837b
commit r14-2403-gd41a57c46df6f8f7dae0c0a8b349e734806a837b
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110609
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andres at anarazel dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110609
Bug ID: 110609
Summary: Bogus -Wmismatched-dealloc when allocator defined &
used in same TU w/ -fPIC -fno-semantic-interposition
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89793
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110598
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110607
--- Comment #2 from sagebar at web dot de ---
@Andrew Pinski
Sorry if this is a known bug. I simply checked the current gcc master
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|driver |bootstrap
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86130
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109891
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108575
--- Comment #7 from Nikos Tosis ---
thank you for the info, I will try tomorrow to see if I made a mistake in
simulink or its a bug from simulink.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108575
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
>The address 2001 1548 exist not in my map file as variable.
It is a stack address. Since UnitDelay_DSTATE is defined on the stack.
Comment #2 applies here. The code that GCC compiles seems to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110288
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=69692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67226
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexandre.nunes at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108575
--- Comment #5 from Nikos Tosis ---
Hi,
I opened this bug report in January and until today I didn't see any reaction.
do you need more information about the bug or has been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110600
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110608
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think GCC is correct here ...
GCC is the only compiler which implements the `satisfaction of atomic
constraint not depending on itself` part of the C++ standard (there are a few
open bugs dealing with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110607
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110608
Bug ID: 110608
Summary: error on evaluation of concept three_way_comparable on
recursive variant
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Slightly more reduced:
```
#include
using std::is_same_v;
struct s0 {};
struct s1 {};
template
struct s3 {
template
static constexpr bool __usable_key = is_same_v<_Vp, _Key>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110607
Bug ID: 110607
Summary: Makefile.in build broken build-tools when CXXFLAGS is
defined
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced all the way:
```
template struct remove_reference {
using type = __remove_reference(_Tp);
};
template
using remove_reference_t = typename remove_reference<_Tp>::type;
template
inline constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104649
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> Null pointer dereference.
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
> index bd586e75008..8e2cd511c4d 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110592
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Note that this makes it impossible for distributions to default to sparc v7
> with an unmodified gcc.
>
> Only options are
> - locally patch (fix) gcc
> - provide separate distribution binaries for v7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110605
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Given the command line:
/home/dcb38/gcc/results.20230706.valgrind/bin/gcc cpgarro.o libpgplot.a
then I get the valgrind error. I have attached cpgarro.o, but libpgplot.a,
even with compression from xz,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110605
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 55507
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55507=edit
object module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dangelog at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110606
Bug ID: 110606
Summary: [10/11/12/13/14] ICE output_operand: '%&' used without
any local dynamic TLS references on
powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110603
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC, ICE: internal compiler |[14 Regression] GCC, ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110605
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
most likely not a big issue of not checking the return value here as the next
fscanf that is the first thing inside the loop around num_symbols .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110605
Bug ID: 110605
Summary: Possible lack of error checking in lto-common.cc ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28207|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110604
Bug ID: 110604
Summary: template argument deduction failed with
decltype(lambda)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110592
Martin Husemann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin at netbsd dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110603
Bug ID: 110603
Summary: GCC, ICE: internal compiler error: in verify_range, at
value-range.cc:1104
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110602
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to kefu chai from comment #0)
> i also tested clang + libstdc++ and clang + libc++. all of these
> combinations compiles.
That's usually a sign the code is valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110206
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110588
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712
--- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski ---
(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 13.2.0 at the end of
July.
69 matches
Mail list logo
