https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96262
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
2268inline wi::storage_ref
2269wi::int_traits ::decompose (HOST_WIDE_INT *,
2270unsigned int precision,
2271const rtx_mode_t )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96272
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Well, it needs the addition too, so I think this can't be done in match.pd,
> but would need to be done in some other pass (not sure which, perhaps
> phiopt?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
--- Comment #1 from M Welinder ---
Created attachment 48916
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48916=edit
preprocessed test program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #13 from Stephan Bergmann ---
FTR, with that second patch building recent LibreOffice succeeds without false
positives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96283
Bug ID: 96283
Summary: "undefined vtable" error should indicate which members
are missing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
Bug ID: 96282
Summary: internal compiler error: in
output_constructor_regular_field
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92091
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The problem is deeper than expected. Consider
! { dg-options "-std=f2008" }
program g0d_ilc
character(4) :: fmt="(g0)"
character(6) :: fmt2="(g0.2)"
!F2008:
write(*, fmt) 23
write(*, fmt)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:44:16PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
> >
> > --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.price at monash dot edu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96277
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the trunk this has been fixed in PR94672 r11-271 fix, and can't reproduce on
current 10 branch either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96275
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96272
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, it needs the addition too, so I think this can't be done in match.pd, but
would need to be done in some other pass (not sure which, perhaps phiopt?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96278
--- Comment #2 from DV Henkel-Wallace ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this is a dup of bug 95242.
Could be: I'm not sure if Jason's change applies only to synthesized
comparators or not (that was the case described in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96192
Sunil Pandey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skpgkp2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96280
Bug ID: 96280
Summary: g++.dg/cpp2a/nontype-subob1.C FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96280
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96272
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96270
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note the complication is that u.r is of type 'double' and thus DFmode
which has a mode precision of 64. So this is once again the x86 backend
using float loads/stores that are value-changing (IIRC the ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96279
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
looks like a bogus #define leaking in from somewhere. Maybe you can provide
preprocessed source with -dD (that preserves #define directives in the output)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96273
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96273
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #23 from Sunil Pandey ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #20)
> This bug has prevented the successful compilation of the local
> Linux kernel for just over a month now.
>
> If I can assist with any testing, please let me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96281
Bug ID: 96281
Summary: TBAA does not work as expected for a simple test case
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: alias
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96279
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 48914
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48914=edit
preprocessed source
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> looks like a bogus #define leaking in from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96277
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Price ---
thanks, good to know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96279
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61579
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92411
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96283
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0)
> > I'm assuming the compiler provides the linker with enough information to
> > realize which virtual methods'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85678
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96283
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #2)
> Ok, still - the linker knows which virtual methods it needs, and it knows
> which are provided by each compiled translation unit. Isn't that enough?
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95596
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another one that G++ rejects:
void f(char*);
int (...);
int = f("foo");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-22
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284
Bug ID: 96284
Summary: Outdated C features should be made errors with newer
standards
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96283
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0)
> While this is true, it is a bit confusing. But even supposing I looked up
> what this error means and realized what was going on, I would still need to
> go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But they're not enabled by default, meaning that the unsafe, ill-formed code is
still accepted by default.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96286
Bug ID: 96286
Summary: Unhelpful errors after a failed static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #11)
> 1. Adjust the error message to say, "The first non-inline, non-pure function
> may not have a definition in ."
That error comes from the linker. The linker is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The linker error alone doesn't make the root cause obvious, but it's a
> fairly well known and well documented problem:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
There's -pedantic and -pedantic-errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95237
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:748ada0acb6fd746207aaff23a468717eee06555
commit r11-2270-g748ada0acb6fd746207aaff23a468717eee06555
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Jul 22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80490
Trass3r changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trass3r at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96285
Bug ID: 96285
Summary: The documentation of -fprofile-exclude-files is
unclear
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61579
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #7)
> Could "-Wwrite-strings" be split into two options? The warning could remain
> (and become part of -Wall for C as well as C++) if the compiler can spot and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96283
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95596
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86498
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96293
Bug ID: 96293
Summary: Extraneously noisy "taking address of packed member
may result in an unaligned pointer value"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #18 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #17)
> Created attachment 48917 [details]
> aarch64 native build fix
>
> Could you please try the attached patch? It fixed the issue for me, and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96292
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96194
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael at michaelmarley dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96291
Bug ID: 96291
Summary: -flto fails as "internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault" during IPA pass: cp
incall_for_symbol_thunks_and_aliases()
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96292
Bug ID: 96292
Summary: Internal compiler error when compiling Mesa 20.1.x
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84079
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #17 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 48917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48917=edit
aarch64 native build fix
Could you please try the attached patch? It fixed the issue for me, and
survived
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96289
Bug ID: 96289
Summary: Unnecessary saving and re-testing of the carry flag
with __builtin_usub_overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92411
--- Comment #4 from Will Wray ---
I mis-read this so was too hasty in suggesting "can be closed".
The standard states that a expression evaluation fails to be a constant
expression if it evaluates "reinterpret_cast" (i.e., by named token,
not by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Here's a non-template testcase that ICEs from the same assert in
build_over_call (with -std=c++17, --enable-checking=yes):
struct b {};
b operator|(b, b) { return {}; }
b e, f, g;
using h = decltype(e | f |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96287
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Urban ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Ignoring it could lead to equally undesirable behaviour though.
>
> for file in *.cc ; do gcc "$fil" ; done
>
> Don't those languages support something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68929
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Probably related to PR c++/96286, because if we stopped trying to compile a
class after a failed static_assert then we wouldn't keep recursing in Eric's
example here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96287
Bug ID: 96287
Summary: Empty string argument to gcc should be ignored
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3507
Joseph C. Sible changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josephcsible at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96287
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
If you pass a non-file-name where a file name is expected you are doing
something wrong, and you need to fix *that*. Hiding errors is doing a
disservice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96288
Bug ID: 96288
Summary: [DR 1734] __is_trivial and __is_tirivil_copyable fails
for deleted members
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96287
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ignoring it could lead to equally undesirable behaviour though.
for file in *.cc ; do gcc "$fil" ; done
Don't those languages support something like the Bourne shell's "$@" which does
the right thing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||82922
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> I support including more diagnostics in -Wall and -Werror
I meant "-Wall and -Wextra."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61579
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96236
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae575662833d70cb7d74b9538096c7becc79af14
commit r11-2278-gae575662833d70cb7d74b9538096c7becc79af14
Author: Peter Bergner
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
New patch. This adds a bool component to gfc_forall_iterator so
that an iterator with an index-name that shadows a variable from
outer scope can be marked. Shadowing only occurs when a type-spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96287
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Urban ---
Looking closer at how Perl exec works, along with join on empty strings and
variable, there would seem to be no problem:
exec 'gcc', join(' ', @cppflags, @cflags, '-o', '$@', '$<')
There may be one or two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96287
Andreas Urban changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88604
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96236
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Fixed on trunk. I will backport to the GCC 10 release branch once it reopens.
I would have set the target milestone to 10.3, but that version isn't an option
right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96236
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70913
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=92091
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> Am I correct to understand that #include is handled by the preprocessor?
Yes.
Other compilers always show the path to the included file in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96290
Bug ID: 96290
Summary: nonsensical bounds in VLA types in -Warray-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58156
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
90 matches
Mail list logo
