https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103626
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If a header doesn't depend on any of , etc and could work for
freestanding, do we want to explicitly disable out with #error, or make it
available as an extension?
Since the direction in the standard is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106962
--- Comment #2 from Jamaika ---
For the inquisitive.
I am adding open source.
GCC 1X.X.0 displays no errors. Can check.
Copy include files to gcc 1X.X.0 and run with webp2_nosimd.bat
https://www.sendspace.com/file/jqx6ol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106963
Bug ID: 106963
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in vect_gen_perm_mask_checked, at
tree-vect-stmts.cc:8606
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106962
Bug ID: 106962
Summary: How to create AOM codec in GCC 12.2 and newer under
Windows 64bit?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103626
--- Comment #4 from Arsen Arsenović ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I don't think we need to add the #error to every header. For a start, users
> never include the bits/* headers directly, and if they do, it's their
> problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103626
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think we need to add the #error to every header. For a start, users
never include the bits/* headers directly, and if they do, it's their problem.
So we only need to mark the standard headers as ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103626
--- Comment #2 from Arsen Arsenović ---
I started work on marking headers, and I already marked 162 headers (all of
include/{std,bits,backward}, where appropriate) as part of my work on P1642.
This set also lines up with the set of all installe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> > But wait a minute, is calling a non-const function from [[assume]] even
> > allowed?
>
> Yep, that's the tricky part. Of course, as functions get more co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
--- Comment #9 from Lawrence Lee ---
Thank you Alexander for the recommendation.
I don't know if this helps, but I updated the sample code to make the issue
reproducible with the GCC trunk build available on godbolt.org. I just
introduced an un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
Lawrence Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53560|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106961
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sounds like you should report this to Apple ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106960
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106961
Bug ID: 106961
Summary: Testsuite failures after Command Line Tools update to
v14
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106960
Bug ID: 106960
Summary: [12/13 Regression] Incorrect optimization of signed
integer comparisons
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> So...could we keep doing what we're doing for non side-effect code, and only
> do the outline function for side-effect stuff? Or is that too much to ask?
Yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
> > Silly question, why can't you expand the [[assume]] construct into:
> >
> > if (x > 5)
> > __builtin_unreach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
You could provide an API to access the different relations that hold in either
the outline function, or the .IFN_ASSUME construct. Then ranger could use that
API to access and record the different assertio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105819
--- Comment #14 from bug-reports.delphin at laposte dot net ---
Ok but where ? I didn't find it. What file shows me this coma, and what
line/lines, where ? config.log ? my-configure.log ? my-make.log ?
Besides, when one looks the my-make.log fil
21 matches
Mail list logo
