https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118255
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unnecessary error on|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118256
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118256
Bug ID: 118256
Summary: gcc fails to match the function parameter list when a
reinterpret_cast with rvalue reference is involved
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118255
Bug ID: 118255
Summary: Unnecessary error on variable shadowing for friend
declaration inside template class with non-type
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118036
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118036
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:509df13fbf0b3544cd39a9e0a5de11ce841bb185
commit r15-6476-g509df13fbf0b3544cd39a9e0a5de11ce841bb185
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Mon Dec 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115375
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115375
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d369ddca549b5ff7d868b8f5ee139835b1f9382a
commit r15-6475-gd369ddca549b5ff7d868b8f5ee139835b1f9382a
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Dec 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
.
o we want to fix this, given Jakub and Tobias's remarks?
>
> I have no stock in Cray pointers. If there were a simple fix, then we
> just do it. But the above doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
--- Comment #6 from terryinzaghi ---
x86-64 gcc 14.2
-std=c++23 -O3
https://godbolt.org/z/PcM9aMM95
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
--- Comment #5 from terryinzaghi ---
/*Minimize Reproduce Code Based On Andrew Pinski's Example:*/
//-- can NOT work
template struct Cask {};
struct CanNOTWork : Cask<([]{})>
{
Cask<([]{})> c10{};
};
//-- can work
struct CanWork
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118036
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This is fixed by Robin's varasm.cc patch. I'm doing some testing on the
updated version of that patch now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118220
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Gruber from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2).
>
> Not sure if this completely answers the question, but, as far as I know, the
> PTRDIFF_MAX request-size limi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118220
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Gruber ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I think we discussed replacing if (!p) with if (size > N) with some special N
> but disregarded it with a reason I don't exactly remember.
>
> Yes, the testc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117688
--- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson ---
The test still fails for me when running on qemu with a compiler built from
today's source code (64d31343d4676d8ceef9232dcd33824bc2eff330).
FWIW, the function foo is generated as:
foo:
lui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111814
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Jiaxun Yang from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Note it might need to be under the check of -mieee too
>
> I'm preparing patch for this issue
Thanks!
> and IM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 101186, which changed state.
Bug 101186 Summary: predictable comparison of integer variables not folded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101186
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101186
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60008&action=edit
Slightly more
With some added debug statements that can be turned off.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> So I think the way offset_type is used here is incorrect.
>
>
>
> boost::interprocess::offset_ptr allocate( std::size_t n ) {
> return boost::interp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118254
Bug ID: 118254
Summary: missed knowing lower bits of a variable when using
comparison of shorter type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 110931, which changed state.
Bug 110931 Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since
r14-2890-gcc2003cd875
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118253
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>-fsanitize=address,undefined
That is documented to cause extra warnings.
See slightly below
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.2.0/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.html#index-fsanitize_003dbuiltin:
Note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118250
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen ---
With
--param=switch-lower-slow-alg-max-cases=1
(so using greedy) trunk includes "38" in the first bit cluster, but the LLVM
code is still better. I've seen the dynamic programing algorithm miss clusters
like
FIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jengelh at inai dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Version: gcc version 15.0.0 20241230 (experimental) (SUSE Linux) amd64-linux
Input:
---
#include
#include
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110931
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] Dead |[14 Regression] Dead Code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112109
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114182
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114182
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b739efa05d96edbc1468043a630bf29d38a0c30b
commit r15-6473-gb739efa05d96edbc1468043a630bf29d38a0c30b
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Dec 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118194
--- Comment #3 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
> The wording is also quite confusing - it should probably say
'dereferencing 'p' would access uninitialized memory'.
Oh, indeed. I can certainly confirm that's how I interpreted it when filing
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111814
Jiaxun Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiaxun.yang at flygoat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I think the way offset_type is used here is incorrect.
boost::interprocess::offset_ptr allocate( std::size_t n ) {
return boost::interprocess::offset_ptr(a.allocate(n));
}
That stores the o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60005|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> > There is something off by this offset_ptr.
>
> I am almost want to say this code is undefined; it is at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> There is something off by this offset_ptr.
I am almost want to say this code is undefined; it is at least questionable.
>From the looks of it, it does:
offse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113662
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is something off by this offset_ptr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113828
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8)
> Following your remarks, I tried setting the pointer decl tree static. That
> resulted in the test succeeding for -O but it crashed at higher levels of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda
Summary|internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Keywords|needs-source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106544
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106544
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07e532a0608640b9e57ae6fc3a0ca83c9afc75a1
commit r15-6472-g07e532a0608640b9e57ae6fc3a0ca83c9afc75a1
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Dec 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-source
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114222
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118250
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116662
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118188
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
This is an existing bug that's due to the backend not having been expanded to
support costing of emulated gathers and scatters.
Basically Adv. Simd has no gather and scatters and the vectorizer emulated t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118211
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Looks like the alignment peeling enablement for early break didn't go in in
> time? That should have fixed this by peeling scalar iterations until 's' is
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109592
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118252
Bug ID: 118252
Summary: i386 should implement CASE_VECTOR_SHORTEN_MODE
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118251
Bug ID: 118251
Summary: i386: Use carry bits of shifts
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118250
Bug ID: 118250
Summary: missed optimization in multiple integer comparisons
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89579
AbigailBuccaneer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738
Bug 82738 depends on bug 89579, which changed state.
Bug 89579 Summary: -Wclobbered warning false positive when compiling with -Og
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89579
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
--- Comment #30 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efc0981077a70c4de4596f682c4aeade07ec2f17
commit r15-6471-gefc0981077a70c4de4596f682c4aeade07ec2f17
Author: Steven G. Kargl
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Pretend the example had declared outer as
extern array<10>& outer;
Since otherwise the usage has nothing to do with P2280. gcc does correctly
allow that case too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117818
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|vec_add incorrectly |[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118246
--- Comment #5 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> quadmath.h does not contain FLT128_TRUE_MIN or MAX
I see them in float.h, also see FLT128_TRUE_MIN there as pointing define to
__FLT128_DENORM_MIN__ , guarded by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
Bug ID: 118249
Summary: Misdiagnosing use of 'this' while doing class member
access in constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117836
Bug 117836 depends on bug 117835, which changed state.
Bug 117835 Summary: wrong code with -O -favoid-store-forwarding -mno-push-args
--param=store-forwarding-max-distance=0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117835
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117835
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106544
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-30
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118122
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118122
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64d31343d4676d8ceef9232dcd33824bc2eff330
commit r15-6470-g64d31343d4676d8ceef9232dcd33824bc2eff330
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Mon Dec 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118221
--- Comment #8 from Trampas Stern ---
I also have the same bug in binutils:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32506
I do not fully understand the internals what is happening but from and external
perspective it appears to me that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118248
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
it's the first I was building that for 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118248
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
When did it last work? The D FE hasn't changed in a while.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||s390x-linux-gnu
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118247
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118246
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
quadmath.h does not contain FLT128_TRUE_MIN or MAX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.2.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118247
Bug ID: 118247
Summary: [15 Regression] gnatbind fails to relink in the
install target for powerpc64-linux-gnu and
powerpc64le-linux-gnu in a cross build
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118221
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I'll note that while -ffunction-sections produces different .text sections for
different functions but there's still only a single .debug_info section and the
behavior when GCing sections might end up havin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118248
Bug ID: 118248
Summary: [15 Regression] gdc ICE (segfault) building a riscv64
cross compiler on s390x-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118220
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-30
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118200
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like a missed copy propagation or "invalid" (unexpected) GIMPLE by having
the copy in the first place.
The code needs to follow the copy to the actual SIMD uid var, though
simduid.12_73 = simduid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118214
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
.. and -fno-ipa-sra works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118243
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118244
--- Comment #7 from Brecht Sanders
---
This somehow did allow the build to proceed:
make -Cbuild_mingw/$RUNPLATFORM/libstdc++-v3 LDFLAGS="-L$PWD/build_mingw/gcc
-lcommon"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118246
--- Comment #3 from newbie-02 ---
hello @ Andrew Pinski,
thanks for fast reaction,
a snippet that fails, compile with '-lquadmath' option,
change commenting between FLT128_MIN and FLT128_TRUE_MIN and see that all is
ok, except FLT128_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117835
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c86e1c54c6f8771d08a8c070717b80607f990f8a
commit r15-6464-gc86e1c54c6f8771d08a8c070717b80607f990f8a
Author: kelefth
Date: Mon D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117872
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c86e1c54c6f8771d08a8c070717b80607f990f8a
commit r15-6464-gc86e1c54c6f8771d08a8c070717b80607f990f8a
Author: kelefth
Date: Mon D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118191
--- Comment #5 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> This bug database is still the wrong place for your questions.
>
> You probably need a newer glibc, strtof128 is relatively new.
:-)
Thank you, i'll not try
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
