https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #5 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
> extern "C" void free (void *);
>
> class Base
> {
> public:
> Base();
>
> void * operator new(unsigned long, const int &);
> void operator delete(void * ptr, const int &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
--- Comment #3 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
It is strange that SRA is skipped only when adding the (unnecessary) function
prototype:
static int addsym (register char[], char *, int, hash_table_t, int);
If skipping the prototype, or adding 'w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bernd Edlinger :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c9071c089c31eddc4ac80e0488bb9d37f9e11f1
commit r12-640-g6c9071c089c31eddc4ac80e0488bb9d37f9e11f1
Author: Bernd Edlinger
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96821
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Daniil Dudkin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> > GCC's behaviour is correct, I think. Since the concept constant_expression
> > doesn't use its template parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #20 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
Dude is it right to file a bug report?? Because I'm not sure if that was the
default in Arch. Maybe some stupid program messed it up??
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #19 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
Because the guys at Manjaro are much more knowledgeable than me to know what is
safe and what is not IMO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #18 from Jonathon ---
Thanks for clearing that up. You gave the impression that you reinstalled
Manjaro in a VM to ensure it wasn't a local change, and it wasn't otherwise
clear what Manjaro had to do with anything (i.e. why would Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #17 from sujay1844 at protonmail dot com ---
No duh I'm not running Manjaro.I said I installed Manjaro in a virtual machine
to check what the guys at Manjaro did to the /etc/makepkg.conf. Please read the
context before posting such co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
Jonathon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathon at m2x dot dev
--- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #52 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #51)
> /Users/lucier/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/
> atomic_integral/wait_notify.cc -std=gnu++2a -pthread
> -fdiagnostics-plain-output ./libtes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
-Wmismatched-new-delete considers only "mismatches between calls to operator
new or operator delete and the corresponding call to the allocation or
deallocation function." It doesn't also consider attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #59 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Oh my, what a mess:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96821
Alexander Zaitsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zamazan4ik at tut dot by
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495
--- Comment #2 from Luke Dalessandro ---
It's also possible to workaround this with array allocation.
```
struct Foo {
constexpr virtual ~Foo() {}
};
constexpr bool foo() {
Foo *ptr = new Foo[1]{};
delete [] ptr;
return true;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42587
--- Comment #13 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
> The code in the initial report optimizes to bswap with GCC8.1 and later.
> Is that the test case you meant? GCC8.1 was released on May 2, 2018, well
> before your Nov comment, so maybe you mea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495
--- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro ---
A short-term workaround for this appears to be explicit allocator usage (works
back at least to 10.2).
```
#include
struct Foo {
constexpr virtual ~Foo() {}
};
constexpr bool foo() {
std::allo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
--- Comment #1 from J.M. Eubank ---
Created attachment 50781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50781&action=edit
sha1-O2-save-temps
joeub@DESKTOP-1LUONFR MINGW64
/crossdev/gccmaster/build-cross4/binutils/libiberty
$ ls sha1-O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495
Bug ID: 100495
Summary: constexpr virtual destructor incorrectly reports
memory leak
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #51 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm running fink:
i expect 5.45-206Tool for automatic interactive applications
i dejagnu 1.6.1-1 Framework for testing other programs
i tcltk 1:8.6.10-2 Too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100494
Bug ID: 100494
Summary: Unterminated recursion in gimple-range.cc
(x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #49)
> > > Running
> > > /Users/lucier/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-dg/
> > > conformance.exp ...
> > > WARNING: program timed out.
> >
> > The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100477
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #3 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
* marking operator delete noinline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
But this isn't really a solution since I can't inline new without moving a lot
of code into the header, and marking `operator new` noinline isn't what I want
either. I read both articles prior to mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406
Bug 100406 depends on bug 100485, which changed state.
Bug 100485 Summary: False positive in -Wmismatched-new-delete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Bl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Code generation get worse |[11 Regression] IPA-SRA is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-09
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #49 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
> > and "make; make -k check".
>
> Which, presumably, succeeded [repeatably?] (also presumably with some
> failing tests, since we don't have a clean testsuite on macOS).
It gave reasonab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100493
Bug ID: 100493
Summary: Lambda default copy capture that captures "this"
cannot be used in both C++17 and C++20 modes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80542
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
This issue could be closed. GCC 11 has the required -Wrange-loop-construct
warning: https://godbolt.org/z/343M6WMjb
compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210509 (experimental) [master revision
56103737f17:37fd4fac862:5e0236d3b0e0d7ad98bcee36128433fa755b5558] (GCC)
[620] %
[620] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
0
[621] % gcc110 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
0
[622] %
[622] % gcctk -O3 small.c
[623] % timeout -s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
--- Comment #1 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Created attachment 50780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50780&action=edit
makefile
Adding makefile to compile test example. See in makefile how to
trigger/untrigger the unexpec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
Bug ID: 100491
Summary: Code generation get worse when including function
prototype on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
to complete the set:
/src-local/gcc-master/configure
--prefix=/opt/iains/x86_64-apple-darwin20/gcc-12-0-0
--build=x86_64-apple-darwin20
--with-sysroot=/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk
--en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100246
--- Comment #5 from Denis Excoffier ---
same for me, the patch in comment #3 allowed bootstrap to succeed on linux
(2.6.32-39-pve) with gcc (Debian 4.9.2-10+deb8u2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #48 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #47)
> I downloaded
> [Bradleys-Mac-mini:~/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline] lucier% git log -1 --oneline
> 2254b3233b5 (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk, origin/master, origin/HEAD) PR
39 matches
Mail list logo
