https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
>From Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/465M9Kvx1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
It might be related to PR 104279.
Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/szrGT9E7T
algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220129 (experimental) [master r12-6930-gf6f2d6cfec1] (GCC)
[549] %
[549] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[550] %
[550] % gcctk -O1 small.c
[551] % ./a.out
Aborted
[552] %
[552] % cat small.c
int a(unsigned b, int c) { return b / c; }
int main() {
if (a(1, 2) != 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104278
Bug ID: 104278
Summary: ICE constexpr class non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE constexpr class |ICE with class non-type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> To me this looks like a bug in gimple-fold.cc.
> The r12-6924-gc2b610e7c6c89fd4 simplifies
> _5 = 1 / c.0_4;
> into
> _5 = c.0_4 == 1;
No this is not valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > To me this looks like a bug in gimple-fold.cc.
> > The r12-6924-gc2b610e7c6c89fd4 simplifies
> > _5 = 1 / c.0_4;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually you're right, we in fact enforce this:
/* The resulting type of a comparison may be an effective boolean type. */
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
&& (TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88417
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97024
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
Bug ID: 104282
Summary: Copy elision when initializing a base-class subobject
with aggregate initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104278
--- Comment #1 from Pubby8 ---
Oops I forgot to include the template instantiation:
// ---
int main(int argc, char const** argv)
{
qux::run();
}
// ---
--with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220129 (experimental) [master r12-6930-gf6f2d6cfec1] (GCC)
[538] %
[538] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
[539] %
[539] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[540] % timeout -s 9 5 ./a.out
Killed
[541] %
[541] % cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because -fcompare-debug tells the driver to compile the TU twice, once without
and once with -gtoggle, and compare the result.
So, if there is a difference in the generated IL e.g. for -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this one and the other two are all caused by r12-6924.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 103929, which changed state.
Bug 103929 Summary: False warning: no return statement in function returning
non-void with lambda in template argument for non-class type as default
template argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(eq @1 { build_one_cst (type); })
Should be:
(convert (eq:boolean_type_node @1 { build_one_cst (type); }))
The other part of the match pattern needs a similar fix too.
-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220129 (experimental) [master r12-6930-gf6f2d6cfec1] (GCC)
[552] %
[552] % gcctk -O0 small.c; ./a.out
[553] %
[553] % gcctk -O1 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:6:1: error: bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/ovnrnEGj6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc 12 defaults to c++17. I have not looked but I suspect that is the
difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104286
Bug ID: 104286
Summary: gimple-match should cause an ICE for comparisons which
are not of "boolean" types
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 2:40 PM write2mark1--- via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> Why does gcc use CVS and not git
GCC has used git for ~2 years now and before that it was using svn for
~14 years; before that used cvs for ~8 years and then used rcs (though
the overlap between rcs and cvs is real).
GCC's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Both Clang and GCC do not change their output either with `-std=c++20` or with
`-std=c++17` options. And both reject the program with -std=c++14`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
In your last example, I think Clang is right, because `Y` is not an aggregate
in C++11 due to the presence of default member initializer. And it becomes an
aggregate only in C++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think there's any existing bug about this, and it's an open issue in the ABI
Why does gcc use CVS and not git
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:27 PM admin at levyhsu dot com via Gcc-bugs <
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
>
> --- Comment #14 from Levy Hsu ---
> Hi Avieira and Richard
>
> I checked the data for the last half
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#2403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is c++17 requires Copy elision here while c++14 does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Related to https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/107
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Bug ID: 104284
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression
'' of kind implicit_conv_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104283
Bug ID: 104283
Summary: nvptx-none needs more user friendly architecture
handling
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa87c979d34bdea62586de79e8645fbddfa065b8
commit r10-10427-gaa87c979d34bdea62586de79e8645fbddfa065b8
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6da0c19bdcf992bd18c32335342fc3511683f314
commit r10-10426-g6da0c19bdcf992bd18c32335342fc3511683f314
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100623
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
commit r12-6931-ga1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
commit r12-6931-ga1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
commit r12-6931-ga1544878966020d1f7a640b35d1f7a5f0e055624
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95424
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d41939c8799a51b1cd7f4610c06771bf6d52f15
commit r12-6932-g3d41939c8799a51b1cd7f4610c06771bf6d52f15
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104279
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101135
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb05ddea976a7a8b3f02175050a5d53356ccab9d
commit r9-9932-gbb05ddea976a7a8b3f02175050a5d53356ccab9d
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104285
Bug ID: 104285
Summary: openmp offload linker issue
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100623
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
There seems to be some IR difference on the gimple level which might be making
this latent.
In GCC 11.2.0 we have (bn_add_words) :
_2 = n_3 & -4;
...
if (_2 != 0)
While on the trunk we have:
_14 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104127
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100623
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> There seems to be some IR difference on the gimple level which might be
> making this latent.
But that is not where the problem is located really as far as I
63 matches
Mail list logo
