https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94868
--- Comment #3 from Zhao Jing ---
Dear Richard Biener:
I have already compiled it in GCC-9.3.0.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93372
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
In https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545452.html I mentioned a
performance-regression with coremark, from 5227456 cycles (with cc0) to 5238564
(CC_REG), which is about 0.21%.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93372
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27228024598c3515389cdb378346433fb2c48551
commit r11-222-g27228024598c3515389cdb378346433fb2c48551
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
You're right, there is a substantial difference between attributes const/pure
and constness in the C/C++ sense. A warning that detects missing const on
member functions (i.e., this request) is implementable i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95017
--- Comment #1 from Lewis Baker ---
Created attachment 48487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48487&action=edit
test.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95017
Bug ID: 95017
Summary: [coroutines] Failure to generate code for co_yield
expression if its the only statement in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95008
--- Comment #2 from Manfred Schwarb ---
gcc.dg/analyzer/pr93382.c: Sorry, I can't reproduce, this test passes for me.
gcc.dg/two-types-6.c: My bad, I forgot to mention this failure, as this
test did not make sense to me. I could not determine wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |patch
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95008
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95016
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-08
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95016
Bug ID: 95016
Summary: [DR 2082] Referring to parameters in unevaluated
operands of default arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94404
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94629
--- Comment #24 from Leo Yuriev ---
So, seems that all done and this issue should be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95011
mario_grgic at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95011
--- Comment #1 from mario_grgic at hotmail dot com ---
It looks like this is configuration error. --with-sysroot and
--with-native-system-header-dir must both be specified when building on macOS.
However, configure --help does not list or document
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95003
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:234681eadf2c51d7b78270188d64601b7267330d
commit r11-208-g234681eadf2c51d7b78270188d64601b7267330d
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Sun M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94778
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92101
--- Comment #2 from Mateusz Pusz ---
No, it fails on clang with:
```
:22:10: error: use of class template 'basic_fixed_string' requires
template arguments; argument deduction not allowed in template parameter
template
^~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95015
Bug ID: 95015
Summary: Partial specializations of class templates with class
NTTP fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95014
Bug ID: 95014
Summary: gcc fails to merge two identical returns
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57814
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95013
Bug ID: 95013
Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL:
obj-c++.dg/property/property-neg-6.mm
syntax-error-10.mm
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93103
--- Comment #4 from Mateusz Pusz ---
I am so sorry. My bad. You are right. It seems to be fixed indeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> There is a warning like that in the middle-end: -Wsuggest-attribute=pure.
Whether a function is pure is a slightly different thing
to whether it is a C++ const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91010
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79627
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88970
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86216
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86725
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
So only gcc 8 branch is currently affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 85876, which changed state.
Bug 85876 Summary: ICE in move_op_ascend, at sel-sched.c:6164
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it on master and w/ gcc-10.1.0-RC-20200430, regardless of
-checking. It still fails on the 9 branch w/ -fchecking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk ---
Just confirming that that patch works for me, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 84206, which changed state.
Bug 84206 Summary: ICE in get_all_loop_exits, at sel-sched-ir.h:1138
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #5 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 48486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48486&action=edit
Patch that seemed promising but is not sufficient.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #4 from Will Schmidt ---
I'll be attaching a proposed(/rfc) patch momentarily.
I'm able to add logic in cfgexpand.c expand_asm_stmt() to catch the use of a FP
register when our target is SOFT_FLOAT ; but the result is an ICE while t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89963
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it w/ gcc-10.1.0-RC-20200430 or gcc 9.3, gmp 6.2.0, and isl
0.22.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94997
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> ... I see more overhead than value in reports suggesting
> these types of improvements to the code base.
Righto. I've provided the list of all known 237 place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94997
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
After noticing pr94995 (and subsequently also your clarification in comment #3)
I see I was wrong in my assumption. While I'm a big fan of const correctness
and agree that those functions (and probably many o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95008
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93103
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Aren't we correct to reject both calls? The deduced return type for both is
'double', which does not model Integral.
I thought the problem was that we were correctly rejecting the first call but
failing to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94997
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Assuming this is meant to be an enhancement request to add new option to
> suggest to make member functions const the same enhancement request has
> already been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94997
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 48485
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48485&action=edit
text file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93103
--- Comment #2 from Mateusz Pusz ---
It might be a regression because I remember it working fine. Now it fails
again. Check here: https://godbolt.org/z/-K39X7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94997
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94992
--- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
For completeness, this is a reduction of a std::swap(x,x). The placement new
was originally in the move assignment operator.
I was able to reproduce this with gcc 9 by moving a few functions out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47765
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65696
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94458
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-08
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ceae6a13366d9646e172fc943fe8e221b70f0920
commit r10-8124-gceae6a13366d9646e172fc943fe8e221b70f0920
Author: Marek Polacek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94851
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fanalyzer erroniously |-fanalyzer erroneously
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65696
--- Comment #4 from yuta tomino ---
I'm trying the released gcc-10.1, and confirmed that this is fixed.
Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95012
--- Comment #1 from xantares09 at hotmail dot com ---
the full compilation script can be seen here:
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=mingw-w64-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95012
Bug ID: 95012
Summary: [mingw/gcc10.1] mmapio.c:69:14: error: implicit
declaration of function ‘getpagesize’
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95011
Bug ID: 95011
Summary: Error building gcc 10.1.0 on macOS Catalina with Xcode
11.4.1
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95010
Bug ID: 95010
Summary: Recursive function template with function parameter of
type decltype([]{}) is rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95000
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95009
Bug ID: 95009
Summary: decltype of increment or decrement bitfield
expressions are wrong and causes assembler errors.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95008
Bug ID: 95008
Summary: [11 regression] excess errors in
gcc.dg/analyzer/pr93382.c and gcc.dg/two-types-6.c
after r11-169
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95000
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug.
I've filed PR analyzer/95007 to track the RFE for a warning about writes to a
string literal.
Clearly there's a bug somewhere in the handling for the path condition for the
warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95007
Bug ID: 95007
Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about writes to string
literals
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94999
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Actually, it's possibly failing to realize that calloc zeroes the memory.
Either way it makes a good test case for when reintroducing
-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value; thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95006
Bug 95006 depends on bug 94999, which changed state.
Bug 94999 Summary: internal compiler error: in saved_diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94999
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94999
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94447
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tommy-gccbugs at thorn dot ws
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95006
Bug ID: 95006
Summary: Reimplement -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92187
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mateusz.pusz at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93103
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
--- Comment #5 from Niall Douglas ---
Just to clarify what I'm asking for:
Calling a [[noreturn]] function ought to have the same effects on codegen as:
```
[[noreturn]] void theend();
...
if(a)
{
theend();
__builtin_unreachable();
}
```
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The on-demand VRP (or if it can do non-zero bits too, even better), ought to
handle this kind of things, but it isn't something we can store in the
SSA_NAMEs unless we create the ASSERT_EXPRs (which means dur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95004
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Simpler example:
[[noreturn]] void theend();
int f(int x){
if(x&7)theend();
return x&3;
}
(or replace "theend()" with "throw 42")
We shouldn't compute x&3, it is always 0 in the branch where it is compu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94994
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-08
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Sorry, but noreturn functions can have side-effects that need to be preserved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #7)
> Created attachment 48483 [details]
> 32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 pr94703.c.021t.ssa
>
> The new testcase FAILs on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 (both 32 and 64-bit):
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94987
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, removing any symbols from the DSO is forbidden.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r11-196 PASS for me.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95005
Bug ID: 95005
Summary: zstd.h not found if installed in non-system prefix
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90859
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||95002
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94988
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Ah, forgot to update this testcase. This is another instance of PR57359,
> that is, we may not sink the store to b across the store to *b since b may
> point
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95002
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 48481
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48481&action=edit
PATCH – works but is modifies quite a lot: digest_init, convert_for_assignment,
convert
Working patch – but I w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95000
--- Comment #2 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de ---
The false positive also happens if you fix that.
In fact, my original (much longer) code does not try to write to read-only
memory.
I put that in my test case in the hope that somebody would mentio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94143
--- Comment #4 from Tomáš Trnka ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> Funny. I do not get failures when compiling with -fsanitize=thread.
I don't think TSAN can help here. This is not a data race between two threads,
but between our SIGCHL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95004
Bug ID: 95004
Summary: Static array of base classes member pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88247
José Rui Faustino de Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jrfsousa at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95000
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.5.0, 8.4.0, 9.2.0
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95003
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95003
Bug ID: 95003
Summary: coroutines: Wrong code for some reference capture
cases.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
