https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109464
--- Comment #5 from LIU Hao ---
Additional information:
I tried splitting the two class templates into two separate .cpp files, so the
explicit instantiation of `basic_shallow_string` should not be subject to
the instantiation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Bug ID: 109470
Summary: unexpected const & behavior
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> This might be a dupe of PR108783 or PR109410 but I had to try reduce it to
> be relatively sure, so may as well file it here for completeness.
I thought it was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
This might be a dupe of PR108783 or PR109410 but I had to try reduce it to be
relatively sure, so may as well file it here for completeness.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
Bug ID: 109469
Summary: [13 regression] ICE: internal compiler error:
verify_flow_info failed (error: returns_twice call is
not first in basic block 2)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54826=edit
util.i.orig (unreduced)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54827=edit
util.i (reduced)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54828=edit
util2.i (reduced further, but check)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
With "-Wall -O1" this is diagnosed properly, but with a spurious
maybe-uninitialized warning:
In file included from /usr/include/c++/12.2.0/cassert:44,
from t.c:2:
t.c: In function 'int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108722
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #10 from Costas Argyris ---
Hi Huaqi,
This is building a larger project, which gcc is part of.I am not familiar
with that larger project and I have never built it.
Could we extract only the gcc-specific part out of the entire
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109446
--- Comment #1 from Mohamed ---
correction to scenario II should pass by value as follows
//void test(Bar b) // scenario II
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #7 from Costas Argyris ---
Still can't do much without detailed info on how exactly you are building gcc,
what is your build setup, what is your cross-compiler version, OS, how you
configure etc etc...Ideally, solid reproduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108241
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb06a507073e4d6218a70a2d5b0738a0487d6d9a
commit r13-7136-gcb06a507073e4d6218a70a2d5b0738a0487d6d9a
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Johannes Kellner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Johannes Kellner from comment #3)
> 'A temporary object bound to a reference parameter in a function call
> persists until the completion of the full-expression containing the call.'
>
> So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, "full-expression" is a formal term defined very precisely in the C++
standard. There is no opportunity for GCC to review that without failing to
conform to the C++ standard. Changing when temporary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109436
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109369
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #5)
> Indeed, sorry, __attribute__((used)) seems a much better solution for
> symbols that might be referenced implicitly, in a manner that LTO plugin
> cannot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26724
Matthijs Kooijman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijs at stdin dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #8 from Costas Argyris ---
Are you building the cross-compiler itself or just using an existing
cross-compiler to build for the windows host?
You may have to build the cross-compiler first from the latest gcc sources, and
then use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #9 from Huaqi ---
Hi, Costas Argyris,
I am using this repo to help build toolchain, the repo link is here:
https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gnu-toolchain
clone this source code and its submodule, and change gcc to upstream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
--- Comment #6 from Johannes Kellner
---
Ok, Ok :)
It's not to me to argue this.
It's just an unexpected behavior (something I was unaware off/ something that
does not happen when doing the same code with other compilers clang/msvc).
And in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109369
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yes, ld should claim _pei386_runtime_relocator (even if later it becomes
unneeded due to zero relocations left to fix up) to make this work properly.
That's for Binutils to fix on their side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109441
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109440
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
There's that other bug which would be basically a duplicate, so I leave this
one tree-optimization, not C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109446
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Neither v nor v1 escapes the function, so I don't think operator delete can
inspect them.
The destructor doesn't inspect the contents, it just destroys the elements
(which is a no-op for int) and then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58c8c1b383bc3c286d6527fc6e8fb62463f9a877
commit r13-7135-g58c8c1b383bc3c286d6527fc6e8fb62463f9a877
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108241
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154
--- Comment #44 from Richard Biener ---
The larger testcase:
typedef struct __attribute__((__packed__)) _Atom { float x, y, z; int type; }
Atom;
typedef struct __attribute__((__packed__)) _FFParams { int hbtype; float
radius; float hphb; float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Bug ID: 109471
Summary: Missing loop unrolling for small std::vector?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109460
--- Comment #11 from Costas Argyris ---
As I said before, I think adding the "-o" flag to
$(COMPILER) -c $< -o $@
is a good and harmless change, but, as per your own report, it didn't solve
your issues because you still got that mysterious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109434
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is that clear_bytes_written_by doesn't handle exceptions properly
and that's thru initialize_ao_ref_for_dse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80883
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Under debugger (trunk) what I see is that the block_result.intersect
(equiv_range)
in the code added by r13-1938 is only true in the VisitObjCMessageExpr function
twice, each time on the
# Result$16_552 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109431
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Michael Meissner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a15a78b919c43954fbfcc90f53f34d7e2700c97
commit r11-10618-g5a15a78b919c43954fbfcc90f53f34d7e2700c97
Author: Michael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109472
Bug ID: 109472
Summary: [13 regression] False unread/unassigned warning for
variable in local package
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
--- Comment #30 from maic ---
This bug still exists for our project. To reproduce:
# g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 13.0.1 20230404 (Red Hat 13.0.1-0)
# cat /tmp/2.cpp
const int (const int , const bool ) { return i; }
int main() {
int a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109369
--- Comment #8 from Pali Rohár ---
So from the discussion, do I understand correctly that this is rather LD linker
issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
--- Comment #1 from Wilhelm M ---
Inetristingly changing the function to
uint16_t mul(const uint8_t a, const uint16_t b) {
return static_cast((b >> 8) + 1) * a ;
}
produces optimal
mul(unsigned char, unsigned int):
subi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
Bug ID: 109477
Summary: [13 regression] ICE: internal compiler error:
verify_flow_info failed (error: returns_twice call is
not first in basic block 8) when building busybox
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54833=edit
wget.i (reduced)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104312
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #2 from Jorge Pinto Sousa ---
> No in fact -Wformat-security is not enabled by default in the released
> version of GCC from the FSF, the distro I know that enables it by default is
> both Debian and Ubuntu.
Ah so the ones that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>but then some warnings despite being listed there were not triggered:
https://godbolt.org/z/GGnjcjxKh
You get the trigraph warning if you don't supply any options. -std=c++14 option
enables -trigraphs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Jorge Pinto Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96882
--- Comment #11 from David Crocker ---
As the master branch was updated a year ago according to comment 10, does this
mean that there is now a stable release of gcc that incudes the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Bug ID: 109475
Summary: How to check for default compiler warnings in g++
8.4.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>So we can say that these are the only two that are default enabled?
No in fact -Wformat-security is not enabled by default in the released version
of GCC from the FSF, the distro I know that enables it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
In DOM3 I see
901970 range_on_entry (Result$16_552) to BB 120
<...>
Equivalence update! : _143 has range : [irange] TokenKind [22, 22] NONZERO
0x16 refining range to :[irange] TokenKind [22, 22]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54834=edit
wget.i (reduced further, cleaned up, check)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109477
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
See also PR109469 and PR109410.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
Bug ID: 109474
Summary: chunk_by doesn't work for ranges of proxy references
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109476
Bug ID: 109476
Summary: Missing optimization for 8bit/8bit multiplication /
regression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109475
--- Comment #6 from Jorge Pinto Sousa ---
Let me rephrase, Im sorry maybe I was too broad. For any specific gcc binary,
> /usr/bin/gcc-8 -Q --help=warnings | grep enabled
Will give me the list of warnings enabled by default?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
--- Comment #4 from Stefano ---
Created attachment 54829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54829=edit
source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
PR108783?
Anyway, will have a look now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109470
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109462
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have tried
struct Token {
unsigned char pad[4];
unsigned int uintdata;
unsigned long ptrdata;
unsigned short kind;
unsigned char pad2[6];
Token () : uintdata (0), ptrdata (0), kind (0) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109469
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Assignee|unassigned at
gcc version 13.0.1 20230411 (experimental) (GCC)
~/gcc/scratch_build/gcc$ echo -n g:; git -C ../../scratch rev-parse HEAD^
g:b8e32978e3d9e3b88cd4f441edfdebfa395a5c26
(the commit applied on top of this is a maintainer-scripts/ edit)
I don't have a vanilla build of current releases/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109473
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE during GIMPLE pass: |ICE during GIMPLE pass:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98450
maic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 98450, which changed state.
Bug 98450 Summary: Inconsistent Wunused-variable warning for std::array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98450
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109067
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109473
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #13 from Alex Coplan ---
Clang recognizes the "cxx_defaulted_functions" feature to detect whether "=
default" functions are supported.
It's clear that __has_feature (cxx_defaulted_functions) should evaluate to 1
for -std=c++11 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109104
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40fc8e3d4f600d89e6b065d6f12db7a816269c8f
commit r13-7138-g40fc8e3d4f600d89e6b065d6f12db7a816269c8f
Author: Yanzhang Wang
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81953
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109442
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, maybe the problem is that the library code manually elides destroying the
elements, precisely because it's a no-op. So we don't actually destroy the
elements, which means the compiler might think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109471
--- Comment #3 from Stefano ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> The code seems available in the godbolt link but it uses std::array, not
> std::vector.
I'm sorry. I mean std::array of course. :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61615
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=99982
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=41742
Ajit Kumar Agarwal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
