https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55799
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36831
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13005
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117288
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] LTO ICE in |[15 Regression] LTO ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(insn:TI 25 34 17 (set (reg:V4SI 60 v28 [orig:102 _2 ] [102])
(xor:V4SI (reg:V4SI 60 v28 [orig:102 _2 ] [102])
(const_vector:V4SI [
(const_int 3 [0x3]) repeated x4
zer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r15-4622-20241025083800-g6aba48a8cc1-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20241024 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
>
> > Why are you all talking about C++? Yes, the docs mention C++ but this is a
> > request for C.
>
> Because Wunterminated-string-initialization was a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #13)
> The proposal makes sense to me too, particularly after reading the docs.
> (Unless there's already a way to silence the warning for particular
> construct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.3 |4.7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
You could possibility change this function to use a worklist instead. But I am
not sure having a tree depth this large is in normal code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure if there is not much to be done.
The front-end is recusive here:
/* Binary operations evaluating both arguments (increment and
decrement are binary internally in GCC). */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 59434
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59434&action=edit
gzip'd test case that segvs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117291
Bug ID: 117291
Summary: Simple but large test case uses up over 8M of stack
and hits SEGV
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117280
--- Comment #1 from Jiang An ---
I've realize that the original example seems invalid because the temporary
object shouldn't be usable in constant evaluations (as it's of a volatile type
due to reference binding).
But this one (accidently?) has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99175
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #411 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #409)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #407)
> > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #406)
> > > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117290
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This has the same issue:
```
void f(int t) {
if (0 ? __builtin_exit(0) : 0)
;
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.4, 4.9.4
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117290
Bug ID: 117290
Summary: error: void value not ignored , pointing to the wrong
function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #410 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 59432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59432&action=edit
a trial patch for c#404
It's difficult to see what is going on, because the test case is too huge.
Looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117289
Bug ID: 117289
Summary: gcc.dg/debug/ctf/ctf-function-pointers-2.c failure
with -std=gnu23
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #409 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #407)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #406)
> > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #405)
> > > File too large to be att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117288
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
slyfox/dev/git/gcc/configure --disable-multilib
--disable-bootstrap --disable-lto --disable-libsanitizer --enable-languages=c
CFLAGS='-O1 -g0' CXXFLAGS='-O1 -g0' LDFLAGS='-O1 -g0' --enable-lto
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20241024 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113814
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6aba48a8cc128e54ee243d451ac9a843ff41c4f9
commit r15-4622-g6aba48a8cc128e54ee243d451ac9a843ff41c4f9
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64178
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
It turns out GCC does not support variadic templates for any of the operators
that have 1/2 operand forms (operator-, operator+ too); see PR 117285 for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117285
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 115007, which changed state.
Bug 115007 Summary: [modules] ICE in maybe_clone_body when calling virtual
destructor from instantiated template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115007
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115007
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115007
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:058ed8705a7b38bef2c107b6ff5de243aebd57b4
commit r15-4620-g058ed8705a7b38bef2c107b6ff5de243aebd57b4
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #31 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #27)
> Sounds good, looking forward to try out a new COPR build!
I've update the COPR to use the latest version of my patches:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/copr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116953
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca0ab7a0ac18911181e9161cfb8b87fb90039612
commit r15-4618-gca0ab7a0ac18911181e9161cfb8b87fb90039612
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117285
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59431
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59431&action=edit
testcase
Next time please attach the testcase or place it inline of the bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #30 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecd6bee0913db1237424ea68b0b1ec252b024e9c
commit r15-4617-gecd6bee0913db1237424ea68b0b1ec252b024e9c
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #29 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3aa301db1b09b533b3635791a98d6bf906e9a15
commit r15-4615-gb3aa301db1b09b533b3635791a98d6bf906e9a15
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59415|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113197
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Dimitar Dimitrov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcd56224d74cdd8dc3c77097de51e97bc7b6d181
commit r15-4612-gbcd56224d74cdd8dc3c77097de51e97bc7b6d181
Author: Dimitar Dimitrov
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117179
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117179
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #8)
> for the reduced testing case, with my work-in-progress 3rd version of the
> patch + -fdiagnostics-explain-harder:
> t.c:15:15: warning: array subscript [0, 2] is outside a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
_Z3bazj._assume.0 assume inferred range of x_2(D) (param x) = [irange] unsigned
int [9, 10] MASK 0x3 VALUE 0x8
on-exit update x_2(D) in BB2 : [irange] unsigned int [9, 10] MASK 0x3 VALUE
0x8
The _Z3bazj.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #14 from qi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Given PR117287 I'm going to test just the #1 patch for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Keywords|build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117264
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Terzi ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> After some search, I found a gfortran 13.3.0 (openSUSE 15.5, r13-8781),
> that fails also for
>
> program p
> type,abstract::t
> end type t
> type,extends(t)::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117261
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-24
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117287
Bug ID: 117287
Summary: [13/14/15 Regression] assume attribute related
miscompilation
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #28 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf43fe6aa966eaf397ea3b8ebd6408d3d124e285
commit r15-4610-gbf43fe6aa966eaf397ea3b8ebd6408d3d124e285
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117274
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d47645cd47c9a84a69343b641a6ee741a85dc75
commit r14-10833-g2d47645cd47c9a84a69343b641a6ee741a85dc75
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, the powerpc gengtype issue during --disable-checking build with those 2
patches is about whether
gcc_assert (union_or_struct_p (kind));
in gengtype.cc (new_structure) is present or commented out, if i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59416|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117274
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117107
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d47645cd47c9a84a69343b641a6ee741a85dc75
commit r14-10833-g2d47645cd47c9a84a69343b641a6ee741a85dc75
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 99175, which changed state.
Bug 99175 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/modules/bad-mapper-1.C -std=c++17 (test for
errors, line )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99175
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117248
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
The trap doesn't occur with the following change:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc
index 53f5400a961..112679f8701 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117286
Bug ID: 117286
Summary: [RISC-V] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
`__riscv_vlmul_ext_v_f16mf2_f16m1`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
ðāļāļāļāļāļļāļāļēāļāđāļāļ°āļāļģāļŠāļģāļŦāļĢāļąāļāđāļāđāļēāļāļāļāļāļļāļĢāļāļīāļ
āļāļĩāđāļāļāļāļ°āđāļāļĩāļĒāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļē/āļāļēāļāļīāļāļĒāđ/ āļŦāļāļ. āļāļļāļāļŠāļēāļŦāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļąāđāļ§āđāļ
āļāļļāļāļŦāļĄāļļāļāđāļ§āļĩāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āļŠāļąāđāļ āļāļāļļāļĄāļąāļāļīāļāđāļēāļĒ
âïļāđāļĢāļīāđāļĄāļāđāļ 1.5% - 0.5%
âïļāļāļāļļāļĄāļąāļāļīāļŠāļđāļāļŠāļļāļ 3,000,000 āļāļēāļ
âïļāļāļĢāļēāļāļāļĨ āļ āļēāļĒāđāļ 30 āļāļēāļāļĩ (āļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāđāļāđāļāļāļŠāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļāļāđāļ§āļ)
âïļāļāļĢāđāļāļĄāļĨāļāļāļ·āđāļāļāļĩāđāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĄāļīāļāļŦāļāđāļēāļāļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļģāļŠāļąāļāļāļē
âāđāļĄāđāļĄāļĩāļāđāļĒāļāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļāļģāļĢāļ°āļāđāļāļāļāļģāļŠāļąāļāļāļēāļāļļāļāļāļĢāļāļĩâ
â
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117279
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
it's because p points to itself and thus p.ptr[index] "points to" p:
p.ptr = &p.local_buf;
..
_4 = p.ptr;
_5 = _4 + index_11(D);
_6 = *_5;
_7 = (int) _6;
__builtin_printf ("%c\n", _7);
points-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, testsuite-fail
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117284
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> else if (__old_size < _Base::size())
And that should be > not <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117284
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> if (__old_data != _Base::data())
> {
> this->_M_invalidate_all();
> this->_M_update_guaranteed_capa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117285
Bug ID: 117285
Summary: Compilation fails when using template parameter packs
to populate operator overload function arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117284
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-24
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117201
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
unsigned char a = 193;
unsigned char *b = &a;
void
foo (void)
{
unsigned char c[] = { 0, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 6, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0,
2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117284
Bug ID: 117284
Summary: Debug Mode vector invalidates all iterators on
assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117259
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b25d3201b6338d9f71c64f524ca2974d9a1f38e8
commit r15-4595-gb25d3201b6338d9f71c64f524ca2974d9a1f38e8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117283
--- Comment #1 from Yibo He ---
The data initialization is long, because I find that this bug is triggered when
long data input. If anyone has a better submission format for code like this,
please let me know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117283
Bug ID: 117283
Summary: [RISC-V] Miscompilation triggered by
`__riscv_vsseg7e32_v_i32m1x7`, GCC 14.2.0 at `-O1`,
`-O2`, `-O3`, and `-Os`.
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117209
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:885143fa77599c44bfdd4e8e6b6987b7824db6ba
commit r15-4594-g885143fa77599c44bfdd4e8e6b6987b7824db6ba
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99175
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Created attachment 59416 [details]
> gcc15-pr117249-2.patch
>
> Untested patch to change the gcc_assert definition.
Unfortunately this doesn't work, there ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 107084, which changed state.
Bug 107084 Summary: Program does not link with Standard Library Header Unit but
with correspoding #include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107084
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107084
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106329
Jennifer Schmitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jschmitz at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117282
--- Comment #3 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> >could we introduce a new option like -mcmodel-dyn{=tiny/small/large} as a
> >supplement to -mcmode
>
> This would cause too many confusion really. especially depen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||67491
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117281
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is the ICE on the trunk:
```
:11:27: internal compiler error: tree check: accessed elt 2 of
'tree_vec' with 1 elts in tsubst, at cp/pt.cc:16464
11 | triggers_bug bad;
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117281
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
New reduced testcase:
```
template struct always_string{};
template concept t = true;
template typename T> struct triggers_bug {
T value;
};
triggers_bug bad;
```
To show it is unrelated to a type al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117282
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>could we introduce a new option like -mcmodel-dyn{=tiny/small/large} as a
>supplement to -mcmode
This would cause too many confusion really. especially depending on the
definition of your tiny/small/large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-10-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117282
Bug ID: 117282
Summary: Miss optimization to eliminate strlen computation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117281
Bug ID: 117281
Summary: Concepts and variadic template: internal compiler
error
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117272
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Kellnberger from comment #0)
> Since gcc 13 this is valid code:
>
> ```C++
> template void f(){
> static_assert(false);
> }
Only because this function template is never instantia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116613
--- Comment #27 from Kamil Dudka ---
Sounds good, looking forward to try out a new COPR build!
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
