https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105581
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105581
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Summary|boolean types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96544
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90259
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-27
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83167
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I might have seen a dup of this bug before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104358
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||107430
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107430
Bug ID: 107430
Summary: [meta-bug] lambda in decltype
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: c++-lambda, meta-bug, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
--- Comment #2 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105558
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|simple 8-bit integer|[10 Regression] simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107357
jiawei changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107357
--- Comment #2 from jiawei ---
Verified, Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105558
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Fixed on master with r11-3718-g91ae6930ed4a87d7.
If anything that just made the issue latent I suspect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105568
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105616
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely -fsanitize=address is confusing things. There are a few other bugs
which talk about -fsanitize=address and -Wuninitialized interactions too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101806
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this will be fixed/improved by
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/602089.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105162
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[AArch64] outline-atomics |[9/10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105162
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105627
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Component|debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107414
Simon Marchi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107423
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-27
Status
ernally for RTL level we do atomic loads as volatile memory.
(insn 5 4 0 (set (reg:QI 83 [ _5 ])
(mem/v:QI (symbol_ref:DI ("atomic") [flags 0x2] ) [-1 S1 A8]))
"/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20221026/include/c++/13.0.0/bits/atomic_base.h":505:24
-1
(nil))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105661
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||50677
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105686
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Btw. 2092f134b7180cd2542cff93bd8a876b3e59a77b revision made it visible.
r10-358-g2092f134b7180c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107414
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Actually, Jakub was right. This is a gdb issue. The gdb maintainers pointed
me to the trunk version and this indeed works with this simple code sequence.
There might have been a bug as in 107012 but even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107428
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99435
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
I am really confused.
To all of my knowledge, IN and OUT can address a range of 64 bytes. For
example, the opcode of OUT is
1011 1AAr
where "r" bits encode for the register number (2^5 = 32 o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107429
Bug ID: 107429
Summary: misdiagnosed "constraint depends on itself" in
overloaded functions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107428
Bug ID: 107428
Summary: trying to define a partial specialized concept does
not give a good error message
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103474
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am now stuck with the following code, which I believe is valid.
(It is accepted by Crayftn and rejected by Intel, but I thought it is
covered by F2018:5.4.7(5)):
program p
type t
integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Requires-clause constructor |Requires-clause constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103975
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
If someone is going to fix this, the following changes might also play a role:
* v8+ may emit optimized ISR prologues / epilogues using PR81268: gcc will just
emit pseudo-instruction __gcc_isr which will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7d28818179247685f3c101f9f2f16366f56309b
commit r13-3513-gf7d28818179247685f3c101f9f2f16366f56309b
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:22:47PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
>
> --- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Submitted: http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107427
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107427
Bug ID: 107427
Summary: ICE Segmentation fault when -O1 -fdisable-tree-lower
-fdisable-tree-eh is given
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79469
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79469
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Now the assume for C++23's assume attribute has been added, adding this builtin
should be straight forward I think.
Because the builtin is exactly the same as the attribute in that the expression
supplied to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #16)
> > For Darwin, PPC intrinsics already is there in Apple headers. Can it be
> > added into current GCC?
>
> If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
the patch above does not seek to answer questions on validity - it simply
publishes the same header that was made available in the darwin toolchains (so
will be neither better nor worse than that)>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
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=103413
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12)
> > pr103413-boz.f90:4:6:
> >
> > 4 | r = z'1234'
> > | 1
> > Error: BOZ literal constant at (1) is neither a DATA statement value nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107422
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-26
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 53779
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53779&action=edit
introduce ppc_intrinsics.h for powerpc*-darwin.
This takes the header from the GCC-4.x apple debt branch (as pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106393
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106393
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2249cd9adf5ae638577139177a50f7e62d8abd9
commit r13-3511-gd2249cd9adf5ae638577139177a50f7e62d8abd9
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95148
--- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > I should not be getting this warning, because when x is unsigned, the
> > comparison is never performed, due to the short-circuit semantics of `and`.
>
> T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107417
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:24:04PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
>
> --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #3 from Rama Malladi ---
I will get the effect of this revert for the overall SPEC FP score. I haven't
tried experimenting with fp_reassoc_width values. Will try it and update.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106703
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like a dup of 107366; possibly fixed by
r13-3469-g2e8a0553918adc919f98ac5c0224fc6ce1fef68d.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
Bug ID: 107426
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_derived_types,
at fortran/interface.cc:636
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107425
Bug ID: 107425
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl,
at gimplify.cc:3060
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107424
Bug ID: 107424
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at
fortran/trans-openmp.cc:5397
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107423
Bug ID: 107423
Summary: ICE in parse_spec, at fortran/parse.cc:4017
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107422
Bug ID: 107422
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in lvalue_kind, at
cp/tree.cc:293
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> Well, a boz is typeless, so it cannot be compatible with any other type.
> So, I would assume, you could do
>
> if (ts1->type == BT_BOZ || ts2->type == BT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107299
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 107420 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Can this be reproduced on a cross? Could you provide a preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If the real issue in a particular place in the kernel is that a single
(anonymous) enum type is being used for lots of different kinds of
constants, then the appropriate fix in the kernel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> Seems LLVM currently only supports _BitInt up to 128, which is kind of useless
> for users, those sizes can be easily ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97684
Torbjörn SVENSSON changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torbjorn.svensson at foss dot
st.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.meier at hexagon dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107353
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 regression] Numerous|frontends sometimes select
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107421
Bug ID: 107421
Summary: problematic interaction of 'common' and
'threadprivate'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|enums can be wrongly long |[13 Regression] enum change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107420
Bug ID: 107420
Summary: [13 regression] ICE when building trunk with ieee128
after r13-3307-g8efc38347a7444
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107419
Bug ID: 107419
Summary: attributes are ignored when selecting TLS model
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106433
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
JFTR, I believe I can reproduce the same issue on x86_64 w/ the current gcc
13.0.0 20221023 (g:0e37fd4dc74c1db99cdc7d71ef378e1221253c6f) snapshot:
int m;
int *p;
__attribute__ ((simd)) int
bar (int x)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107417
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107353
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexander Monakov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82e629c26647313be406c41a01e6868cfad0f289
commit r13-3509-g82e629c26647313be406c41a01e6868cfad0f289
Author: Alexander Monakov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #16)
> For Darwin, PPC intrinsics already is there in Apple headers. Can it be
> added into current GCC?
If it is in the Apple headers already, why would you ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107418
--- Comment #1 from Volker Weißmann ---
If you don't like that I enabled -flto, but disabled the optimizer, tell me,
then I minify another example that triggers the same segfault, even if -Os is
given.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107418
Bug ID: 107418
Summary: lto-dump -gimple-stats Segmentation Fault
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130
Tomas Kalibera changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52007|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107417
Bug ID: 107417
Summary: g++ fails to recognize parameter pack in
requires-expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #16)
> For Darwin, PPC intrinsics already is there in Apple headers. Can it be
> added into current GCC?
There is a version of the header on the FSF Apple branch, whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
--- Comment #16 from Sergey Fedorov ---
For Darwin, PPC intrinsics already is there in Apple headers. Can it be added
into current GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
--- Comment #2 from bjchan9an at foxmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Binutils bugzilla is located at https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ .
Sorry, can you delete this report? We will report it to binutils bugzilla.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Binutils bugzilla is located at https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107416
Bug ID: 107416
Summary: A heap buffer overflow was fould in
find_section_in_set() of binutils-2.39 (commit
49c843e6)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107415
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meier ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Gcc can detect memset and optimize it to memset. And this is what is
> happening.
> This is documented too.
Thanks for your quick reply. I understand what is h
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo