https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106369
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9efe4e153d994974afcbba09c3c683f5f4a19c63
commit r13-1901-g9efe4e153d994974afcbba09c3c683f5f4a19c63
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
u-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-1899-20220730103523-ga63b99f24df-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220730 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106487
Bug ID: 106487
Summary: Calls to ___builtin_nested_func_ptr_created that
cannot be resolved on M1 (Apple silicon)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71954
Zhihao Yuan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lichray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105679
--- Comment #6 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Should be fixed on trunk. Can you check on the original unreduced testcase?
Thanks! I've done test builds and can confirm these two false positives have
been elim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106486
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> which is often painful to do without structural Makefile changes.
Not true. Most makefiles have CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS. And then use a common
OPTFLAGS or something similar. It seems like setting CXXFLAGS dir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106486
Bug ID: 106486
Summary: C++ warning for -Wmissing-prototypes is pure nuisance
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106484
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106485
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106485
Bug ID: 106485
Summary: Can't use heap pointer in `static_assert`
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106484
rsaxvc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsaxvc at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106484
Bug ID: 106484
Summary: Failure to optimize uint64_t/constant division on
ARM32
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
libbacktrace and libphobos are target modules that are part of the bootstrap
stages. libgo and libgfortran are target modules that are _not_ part of the
bootstrap stages.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #8 from Roger Sayle ---
Investigating further, using an absolute path doesn't help, but interestingly
after the failure, repeatedly trying "make -j 8 bootstrap" a few times, allows
the build to progress after several attempts, so it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106483
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106483
Bug ID: 106483
Summary: undefined reference to function implemented in shared
library if putting main.cpp after options, but non of
any error when putting before options
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101438
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Looks like this is a duplicate of bug 105032 (or vice versa).
Both samples from this bug succeed for me with GCC 11.3 and GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And on the box I was working on this fix (Fedora 34, glibc 2.33) without the
fix I see in ../configure --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--with-long-double-format=ieee --with-long-double-128
make check-gfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Strange, in my 12 branch distro (scratch) build the only differences with the
patch are:
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O0 execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O1 execution test
-FAIL: gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106261
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106449
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 12.2+ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106482
Bug ID: 106482
Summary: [12 Regression] bootstrap of 12.1.0 using 4.8.2 fails
with C++ errors
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106449
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:681c73db9bd156f9b65a73ccc6c4a0a697fe70d6
commit r12-8645-g681c73db9bd156f9b65a73ccc6c4a0a697fe70d6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106261
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0062d8491c20eb95411ac0b112e09ec0cee836d1
commit r12-8644-g0062d8491c20eb95411ac0b112e09ec0cee836d1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:527dccb33e54ffe49fb1507fc4539968f48a9d12
commit r12-8643-g527dccb33e54ffe49fb1507fc4539968f48a9d12
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #7 from Roger Sayle ---
At the point that this fails there is no
/home/roger/GCC/clean_go/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libbacktrace directory whilst
the build (make) is in /home/roger/GCC/clean_go/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgo
I also don't use an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
So what's the contents of .../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libbacktrace?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106472
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-30
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106099
--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Thank you for the patch; I can still trigger the ICE with a degenerate testcase
though:
$ cat testcase.c
void
foo (void)
{
for (unsigned i = 0; i == 0; i++)
__builtin_printf ("%d", i);
}
$ x86_64-pc-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106481
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Thanks Dave. I'd seen this failure when testing glibc 2.36 but hadn't looked
into it more (too warm to keep machine on).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #12 from S
36 matches
Mail list logo
