https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106700
Bug ID: 106700
Summary: O_NONBLOCK does not exist for x86_64-w64-mingw32 host
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
--- Comment #1 from Egor ---
I was told this is a wording defect. The `cpp17-forward-iterator`
exposition-only concept in https://eel.is/c++draft/iterator.traits only permits
lvalue references.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #43 from Yann Droneaud ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #37)
> Fixed on the trunk so far, temporarily by differentiating between < 4KB
> addresses which are still handled like GCC 11 did for warning purposes, and
> >= 4KB a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yann at droneaud dot fr
--- Comment #42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106699
Bug ID: 106699
Summary: Since gcc 12, deferencing constant literal addresses
triggers -Warray-bounds warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46539
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd899c7de36d19ddf18e3bfab4a0c150096e2368
commit r13-2129-gdd899c7de36d19ddf18e3bfab4a0c150096e2368
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106557
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106698
Bug ID: 106698
Summary: `-O2 -flto` cause linker warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106684
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99161
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
All of these patterns use ?& for the output operand but I get the feeling that
the ? should be on the input operand instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||99161
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||106146
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is backend issue:
//(insn 27 31 28 (set (reg/v:VNx2DI 37 v5 [orig:98 v0 ] [98])
//(unspec:VNx2DI [
//(reg:VNx2BI 68 p0 [orig:105 pg ] [105])
//(plus:VNx2DI (mult:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53478|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106567
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johanneskauffmann at hotmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94920
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Paul Hua from comment #5)
>
> Yes, we should do. This also fails the ABS_EXPR scan-tree-dump on LoongArch.
And on riscv32. I will look into that failure later this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106696
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Undefined code at runtime means exactly that if you don't invoke undefined code
you won't have a security issue.
There are other bugs recording this same issue. Also the trunk changes behavior
for -O0 to exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106696
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106696
Stefan Kneifel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Stefan Kneif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Sven Hesse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sven.hesse at drmccoy dot de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106697
Bug ID: 106697
Summary: error: range-based 'for' expression of type 'const int
[]' has incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106696
Bug ID: 106696
Summary: Fallthrough between functions without proper return
statement when optimizing
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106695
Bug ID: 106695
Summary: Regression 11,12: Explicit copy constructor does not
work for a parameter passed via std::async
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106609
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson ---
I tried compiling the gcc-13 cross compiler using the broken gcc-12 host
compiler and -mtune-ctrl=^use_bt but that didn't help.
I then tried rebuilding the broken gcc-12 host compiler with the new spli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106645
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e9dd050e0ccd644c3bb6d6538dc6187157f6b3e8
commit r13-2127-ge9dd050e0ccd644c3bb6d6538dc6187157f6b3e8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
32 matches
Mail list logo
