https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91085
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115428
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116223
Bug ID: 116223
Summary: GCC rejects program involving integral conversion in
non-type template parameter with auto
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106409
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC with LTO: Warning: |GCC with LTO:
|argument 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116221
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
The same issue shows up in a few other places:
```
In function ‘gfc_get_intrinsic_sub_symbol’,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116222
Bug ID: 116222
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized in record_target_from_binfo in
ipa-devirt.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116221
Bug ID: 116221
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized in gfc_get_ha_symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116218
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
All versions I tried fail, although the diagnostic improved between 11 and 12:
11:
```
In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:970,
from
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./work/gcc-15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116216
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wstringop-overread in |[13/14/15 regression]
|at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116202
--- Comment #3 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #2)
> Confirmed, thanks and will take care of it soon.
Just prepared a fix, and will send it out if no surprise from test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116215
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wstringop-overflow in |[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
interesting, removing the line markers cause the compare debug to go away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wmaybe-uninitialized in|[14/15 regression]
|tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 58818
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58818&action=edit
attempted-reduction.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
I'm trying to reduce it but it's pretty slow going.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116220
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Am I missing something here?
libiberty's simple_object_elf_copy_lto_debug_sections also does:
```
dest = simple_object_write_create_section (dobj, pfnname[i - 1],
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116220
Bug ID: 116220
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialised in lto_obj_begin_section
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
ah, sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
It's at r15-2707-g8256d5c0097dff but I was also still using -fno-tree-forwprop
when I hit it. (I'll drop that from my build flags now for the compare-debug
stuff.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh there was a mismatch between the summary and comment #0, `-O3` should be
used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
was this before or after r15-2691-g33baa20c5cdcf5 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116219
Bug ID: 116219
Summary: [14/15 regression] -O2 -march=znver3
-gno-statement-frontiers -fcompare-debug failure when
building botan-3.2.0
Product: gcc
Version: 15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116218
Bug ID: 116218
Summary: -Wformat-overflow in gengtype.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116216
Bug ID: 116216
Summary: -Wstringop-overread in attribs.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116217
Bug ID: 116217
Summary: RangeAdaptorClosure pipe operator is underconstrained
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107743
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107743
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116202
--- Comment #2 from Li Pan ---
Confirmed, thanks and will take care of it soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116215
Bug ID: 116215
Summary: -Wstringop-overflow in i386-expand.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116214
Bug ID: 116214
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized in tree-vect-stmts.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116213
Bug ID: 116213
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized in tree-ssa-loop-niter.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
--- Comment #4 from Guillaume ---
OK thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||Riscv
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well x86_64 has a redzone by default so if the stack usage is small enough,
there would be no incremental of the stack there.
Try on aarch64 or mips or powerpc, you will see the same issue.
This is a known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116212
Bug ID: 116212
Summary: [13/14/15 regression] -Walloc-size-larger-than warning
when building
20_util/specialized_algorithms/uninitialized_move/cons
trained.cc with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
--- Comment #2 from Guillaume ---
Hi, thanks. Yes it looks like it, but I could not reproduce this exact problem
with x86_64. Maybe present for other targets though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is most likely a dup of the other bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116211
Bug ID: 116211
Summary: C Functions returning a struct always manipulate the
stack pointer on RISC-V targets
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116210
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116210
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
This probably only shows up with _FORTIFY_SOURCE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116210
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
stdlib.h:46 for me is:
```
__fortify_function __attribute_overloadable__ __wur char *
__NTH (realpath (const char *__restrict __name,
__fortify_clang_overload_arg (char *, __restrict,
__resolved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116210
Bug ID: 116210
Summary: 17_intro/names.cc test fails
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85629
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-08-03
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116209
Bug ID: 116209
Summary: range_op_table/operator_table should become a final
singleton class
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note without LTO we get the correct function name.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Pretty sure yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does this show up only with LTO?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the fix for the warning should be:
range_operator *m_range_tree[RANGE_OP_TABLE_SIZE]{}; in range-op.h.
That is value initialize m_range_tree which was not done before hand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Oh!
$ rg __ct_base
gcc/cp/decl.cc:4782:{"__ct_base ", &base_ctor_identifier, cik_ctor},
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116208
Bug ID: 116208
Summary: "inlined from" diagnostic note has whitespace after
function name
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> -save-temps is used in others.
Ah, thanks. There's a bunch of other dubious tests too then.
Need to check (some may be OK if .exp sets stuff up fine, some are also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
-save-temps is used in others.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> I think we want dg-do compile here. It looks like scan-assembler-times
> doesn't work with dg-do assemble?
No, this is wrong, other testcases do it fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
>From the logs:
```
PASS: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c: output file does not exist
UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c scan-assembler-times
\\t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Running gcc:gcc.target/aarch64/simd/simd.exp ...
UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c scan-assembler-times
\\tsmmla\\tv[0-9]+.4s, v[0-9]+.16b, v[0-9]+.16b 1
UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116207
Bug ID: 116207
Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c is broken (started
being tested with r15-2414-g2d105efd6f60)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115607
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116202
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113755
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mital at mitalashok dot co.uk
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116206
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116007
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ac02e67503ccffa3dfeeffc0a60fce6bdaca43b
commit r15-2708-g3ac02e67503ccffa3dfeeffc0a60fce6bdaca43b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91437
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90481
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71931
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53222
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56017
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116206
Bug ID: 116206
Summary: No failure when all C++20 prospective destructors are
not viable when templated class definition is
instantiated
Product: gcc
Version: 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116007
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #17)
> Does it also work if you spell the option name correctly? All unknown
> configure
> options are always accepted silently.
Sorry, it was a typo here, not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116203
--- Comment #7 from rudi at heitbaum dot com ---
Hi Andrew,
I tested the fix. Not yet.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zq28wejX3U9J1_JV@faede8dcc269/
75 matches
Mail list logo
