https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98970
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98144
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #13)
> Some data for the inhouse testcase in Bug 80930 with ASAN+UBSAN:
>
> gcc-9@r9-8944: OOM killed after 15min at ~85 GB
> gcc-10@r10-9345: takes ~25min to compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98878
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98878
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:072f20c555907cce38a424da47b6c1baa8330169
commit r11-7117-g072f20c555907cce38a424da47b6c1baa8330169
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Thu Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98972
Bug ID: 98972
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal
terminated program cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98537
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d0737d8f4b10bffe0411507ad2dc21ba7679883
commit r11-7116-g8d0737d8f4b10bffe0411507ad2dc21ba7679883
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Jan 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98172
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b80fefd626460fb8924248622ba59dd56246703e
commit r11-7115-gb80fefd626460fb8924248622ba59dd56246703e
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98717
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb15f761bc741599504d532ef9c1c03a8de71820
commit r10-9348-geb15f761bc741599504d532ef9c1c03a8de71820
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98965
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I was thinking of the latter, i.e., splitting the assignment into a series of
ordinary and atomic, the latter per member. The union case would be diagnosed
(it too should be straightforward to detect).
But C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
The false leak bug appears to very similar to PR analyzer/97072.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
The pertinent glibc commit was:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=26c07172cde74617ca7214c93cdcfa75321e6b2b
("Remove getc and putc macros from the public stdio.h.", 2018-02-06).
It's list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
This turns out to be due to differences in the inline implementation of getchar
in which expose a latent bug in leak-detection.
On my x86_64 Fedora 32 box,
/usr/include/bits/stdio.h is from glibc-headers-2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98325
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b34dbc0a24864b1674bff7a92fa3cf0f1cbcea1
commit r11-7109-g0b34dbc0a24864b1674bff7a92fa3cf0f1cbcea1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98910
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #2)
> Unfortunately, even with your patch Solaris bootstrap is still broken:
>
Sorry, I've just been a bit slow getting the second part in. The first part
was just what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98910
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1d56e6a737418b7b48a53b355f588ea14f1b9a9
commit r11-7108-gc1d56e6a737418b7b48a53b355f588ea14f1b9a9
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Thu Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97882
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97882
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce5720447c69286599b96bae53ae854b1bbe41fa
commit r11-7107-gce5720447c69286599b96bae53ae854b1bbe41fa
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98971
Bug ID: 98971
Summary: LTO removes __patchable_function_entries
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98910
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
On top of the missing locale_t definition, the other issue I'd reported
is also still present:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libphobos/libdruntime/core/thread/osthread.d:1468:12:
error: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88735
--- Comment #3 from Ev Drikos ---
Created attachment 50129
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50129&action=edit
Test Case
IMHO, a simple workaround might be a deep copy in 'gfc_trans_scalar_assign' if
the LHS is finalizable (n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #26)
> I tried the __builtin_object_size patch and while it avoids the warning in
> the reported test case it's not effective in others derived from it, such as:
>
> #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97701
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2211aab8e3832356d066915dfb1e081ac94de7e9
commit r10-9346-g2211aab8e3832356d066915dfb1e081ac94de7e9
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96591
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98965
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The difficulty with making such an assignment atomic is that atomic
operations for different sizes of atomic access don't interoperate on the
same memory; if the struct contains an _Atomic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #26 from Martin Sebor ---
I tried the __builtin_object_size patch and while it avoids the warning in the
reported test case it's not effective in others derived from it, such as:
#include
const char constantString[] = {42, 53};
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98717
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e7c24d97dd65083a770252ce942f43d408fe11d
commit r11-7106-g4e7c24d97dd65083a770252ce942f43d408fe11d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97932
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97932
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65c1cb358999e9d1618834af341b31837ede839e
commit r11-7105-g65c1cb358999e9d1618834af341b31837ede839e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-04
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> The important difference from my auto-host.h to your auto-host.h which
> causes this ICE is that you don't have HAVE_LD_LARGE_TOC defined.
> Manually commenting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98910
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Unfortunately, even with your patch Solaris bootstrap is still broken:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libphobos/libdruntime/core/sys/posix/strings.d:23:15:
error: module core.sys.posix.locale import 'locale_t' n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> The important difference from my auto-host.h to your auto-host.h which
> causes this ICE is that you don't have HAVE_LD_LARGE_TOC defined.
> Manually commenting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98970
Bug ID: 98970
Summary: Use of uninitialized variable in loop is not reported
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60759
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The important difference from my auto-host.h to your auto-host.h which causes
this ICE is that you don't have HAVE_LD_LARGE_TOC defined.
Manually commenting it out makes the ICE reproduceable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98144
--- Comment #13 from Franz Sirl ---
Some data for the inhouse testcase in Bug 80930 with ASAN+UBSAN:
gcc-9@r9-8944: OOM killed after 15min at ~85 GB
gcc-10@r10-9345: takes ~25min to compile, max mem ~6.5GB
Thanks for this nice improvement!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90234, which changed state.
Bug 90234 Summary: 503.bwaves_r is 6% slower on Zen1/Zen2 CPUs at -Ofast with
native march/mtune than with generic ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90234
What|R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90234
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94375, which changed state.
Bug 94375 Summary: 548.exchange2_r run time is 8-18% worse than GCC 9 at -Ofast
-march=native
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94375
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 94375, which changed state.
Bug 94375 Summary: 548.exchange2_r run time is 8-18% worse than GCC 9 at -Ofast
-march=native
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94375
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94375
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94373
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
_type __n);
+ [[gnu::noinline, gnu::cold]] void
+ _M_replace_cold(size_type __pos, size_type __len1, const _CharT* __s,
+ const size_type __len2);
+
public:
# 2285
"/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20210204/include/c++/11.0.0/bits/basic_string.h"
3
size_type
@@ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> If that fixes it, are you really seeing the same ICE on current trunk?
Yes, I see it also on the current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
Bug ID: 98969
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
print_mem_ref)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> I do not set any default CPU:
The default cpu on ppc64le is (should be!) POWER8.
That said, I cannot recreate the issue with a cross build using current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so for GCC 11, can we just help the optimizers a little bit and at the same
time get rid of the warning?
Like:
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.tcc.jj 2021-01-04
10:26:02.930960956 +0100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97894
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I applied the obvious changes and gcc built fine.
git diff attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97894
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 50128
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50128&action=edit
git diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94400, which changed state.
Bug 94400 Summary: 531.deepsjeng_r is 7% slower at -O2 -march=znver2 than GCC 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94400
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94400
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98965
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98717
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90926
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
I cannot recreate the ICE with a native build. I'll try building a cross and
seeing if that exposes the issue for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #23 from Martin Sebor ---
Having a built-in sit on top of a (for now internal?) attribute with the goal
of eventually exposing the attribute makes sense to me, although neither seems
suitable to me for stage 4.
The patch I posted can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Paolo, are you still working on this or should we un-assign it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it is rare for _M_disjunct to return false, most strings being
appended/inserted are disjunct from the string itself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or we could just use #pragma to disable the warning around that function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90926
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6cc142ad99ab8d28581f4ce61056c9cce74dba3
commit r11-7102-ge6cc142ad99ab8d28581f4ce61056c9cce74dba3
Author: Tom Greenslade (thomgree)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What I meant this as was a variant to Martin's
the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-January/234641.html
idea.
Or perhaps add an attribute on _M_dataplus._M_p member that would tell the
compiler about t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
Libor Bukata changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||libor.bukata at oracle dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98922
--- Comment #3 from Visda ---
I looked at GCC 11 release notes, and found the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/546494.html
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Given where we are in our release cycle, we decided to postpone pul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98968
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98967
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-04
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A new built-in seems like a very large hammer to solve this problem, which
should really be implementable in quite simple pure C++.
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> So, can some template stu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98855
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50127
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50127&action=edit
crude hack
So this is a crude attempt at doing this entirely in the BB vect costing
routine by using the store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98968
Bug ID: 98968
Summary: complete include graph is hard to determine
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98967
Bug ID: 98967
Summary: warning to spot recursive include graph
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98802
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Emergency dump:
dump file: ice.i.298r.pro_and_epilogue
;; Function me0 (me0, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=3226, cgraph_uid=1,
symbol_order=0)
try_optimize_cfg iteration 1
starting the processing of deferred ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50125|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 50125
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50125&action=edit
auto-host.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98962
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Another possibility is add x/v constraints to *andsi_1 and *anddi_1 with the
> immediates and disparage that alternative enough to reflect the fact that
> the immed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I do not set any default CPU:
$ ~/BIG/bin/ppc64le/dev/shm/buildbot/install/gcc/bin/ppc64le-linux-gnu-gcc
ice.i -c -fno-schedule-insns -O2 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/marxin/BIG/bin/ppc64le/dev/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98961
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Please note that LZCNT insn has it own set of problems (e.g.
TARGET_AVOID_FALSE_DEP_FOR_BMI), so I'm not convinced that even:
int z (int i)
{
return i == 0;
}
benefits from using LZCNT:
0: 31 c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98855
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7002a33d1ba81e4577d965fb9daaee146b31faa8
commit r11-7099-g7002a33d1ba81e4577d965fb9daaee146b31faa8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98961
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98959
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Summary|[11 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And maybe it would be worth comparing the list of glibc symbols with multiple
symbol versions with the list of interposed libsanitizer symbols, perhaps
several others need similar treatment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72580
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98388
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70375
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57533
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Most of that commit only affects C++20 mode, but it includes:
* typeck.c (treat_lvalue_as_rvalue_p): Overhaul.
The new treat_lvalue_as_rvalue_p code says:
+ /* if the operand of a throw-expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #5)
> My git bisect landed on this commit too.
I just pinged Justin again. He unfortunately doesn't seem to have a Bugzilla
account, so we can't add hi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57533
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems to be fixed on trunk since
commit 1722e2013f05f1f1f99379dbaa0c0df356da731f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Jul 21 05:19:49 2020
c++: Implement C++20 implicit move changes. [PR91427]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98938
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With GCC trunk there's a copy, since:
commit 1722e2013f05f1f1f99379dbaa0c0df356da731f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Jul 21 05:19:49 2020
c++: Implement C++20 implicit move changes. [PR91427]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #4)
> This regression was introduced by:
>
> commit d7e20130650fb46d71e0403652e4e07bc14f9775 (refs/bisect/bad)
> Author: Justin Squirek
> Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57533
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||njormrod at fb dot com
--- Comment #5
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
