https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103162
--- Comment #13 from Florin Iucha ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> I'm going to get the standard clarified instead (and then cppreference will
> probably follow suit).
That will be great!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103162
--- Comment #12 from Florin Iucha ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Florin Iucha from comment #2)
> > It indicates that it reports errors via exceptions.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't mean 0 is a valid return value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103162
--- Comment #10 from Florin Iucha ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> > There are uses for the memory_resources pattern, outside of its current
> > application in the standard library - for example allocating ranges in a
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103162
--- Comment #7 from Florin Iucha ---
That is most unfortunate because it will force us to duplicate the library used
for resource management. Not only that, but if I were to implement the
pmr::memory_resource interface in terms of the other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103162
Florin Iucha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: florin.iucha at amd dot com
Target Milestone: ---
std::pmr::memory_resource::allocate() is annotated with
__attribute__((__returns_nonnull__)) and
std::pmr::memory_resource
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102077
Florin Iucha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: florin.iucha at amd dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Building static GDB using crosstool-ng
(https://github.com/cpackham/crosstool-ng/tree/glibc-2.34) using: glibc 2.34,
binutils 2.37, GCC from 11 branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #14 from Florin Iucha ---
Bisecting the configure flags, I think I narrowed it down to: it fails when
"--enable-gnu-indirect-function" is present.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #13 from Florin Iucha ---
With GCC 11-20210703 snapshot I can reproduce the observation on Ubuntu 20.04
but can not reproduce the observation on Debian testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #12 from Florin Iucha ---
Actually, it gets even better - no clang needed. Just build GCC 11-20210626
Snapshot and build the example using the Google test recipe:
#
# Makefile
#
ALL: bin/test_hello
.PHONY: clean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #11 from Florin Iucha ---
Updated Makefile for clang12:
#---
ALL: bin/test_hello
.PHONY: clean
CXX=/opt/clang12-for-tng/bin/clang++
CXXFLAGS=-m64 -g -std=c++20 --gcc-toolchain=/opt/gcc11-for-tng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #10 from Florin Iucha ---
I am able to reproduce something similar by building GCC11 from snapshot
11-20210626 (96358cbbe6e6447519a155301b6acb1624c0) and then using Clang12
(12.0.1-rc4) ubsan:
#234 0x7f9769d39670 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #9 from Florin Iucha ---
I was not able to reproduce the observation using the native compiler and
system glibc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #7 from Florin Iucha ---
Created attachment 50809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50809=edit
crosstool-ng configuration file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #6 from Florin Iucha ---
With the test file above, and this Makefile:
--8< --8< --8< --8< --8< --8< --8< --8< --8< --8< --8< --8<
ALL: bin/test_hello
.PHONY: clean
CXX=/opt/tng-gcc11-glibc-linux5.4/bin/x86_64-tng-linux-gnu-g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #5 from Florin Iucha ---
It is a "CMake object library" - not a static library.
I will prepare a more self-contained test case shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #3 from Florin Iucha ---
Tried it with current HEAD of https://github.com/google/googletest
(f5e592d8ee5ffb1d9af5be7f715ce3576b8bf9c4), with the cmake patched to add
"-fsanitize=undefined -fno-omit-frame-pointer -std=c++2a" and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439
--- Comment #2 from Florin Iucha ---
This is for regular x86-64; we're using a cross-compiler sysroot to avoid
dependency on system libraries and be able to run the binary on different Linux
distributions.
I can't reproduce the problem on a
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: florin.iucha at amd dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at
gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #7 from Florin Iucha ---
Cool, thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #5 from Florin Iucha ---
Curious, were you able to reduce it further, or just bisected it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #3 from Florin Iucha ---
gcc version 11.0.0 20201108 (previous snapshot) is compiling fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #1 from Florin Iucha ---
Created attachment 49590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49590=edit
pre-processed source file
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: florin.iucha at amd dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 49589
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49589=edit
c++ source code
gcc version 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94473
Florin Iucha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
Florin Iucha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||florin.iucha at amd dot com
--- Comment
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: florin.iucha at amd dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This is a regression between these two versions:
gcc version 10.0.1 20200324 (experimental) (GCC) --- OK
gcc version 10.0.1 20200402 (experimental) (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
--- Comment #18 from Florin Iucha ---
Even this version creates a warning:
#include
struct foo
{
unsigned bar: 30;
unsigned fill: 2;
};
struct foo test(uint32_t value)
{
struct foo foo;
foo.bar = (value >> 2) & 0x3fffU;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Florin Iucha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||florin.iucha at amd dot com
--- Comment
30 matches
Mail list logo
