https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the const_int is not signed extended like it should have been. I
suspect this is coming from the expanders. Maybe even in the x86 backend
expanders.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118289
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen ---
Yes sorry for the dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 118289 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118289
Bug ID: 118289
Summary: Using new crc builtins leads to ICE on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288
Bug ID: 118288
Summary: Using new crc builtins on i386 leads to ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|URL linking to previous |viewvc links in bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harry.onslow at emenda dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.3 |6.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91392
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 7 rejects this code with:
10_MISRA.PTR.ARITH.cpp: In constructor
'workspace::project::Wrapper::Wrapper(workspace::project::Wrapper&&)':
10_MISRA.PTR.ARITH.cpp:11:14: error: initializer for flexible array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118238
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |MOVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117509
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118287
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118287
Bug ID: 118287
Summary: [concepts] Concept with lambda non-type param causes
ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115769
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118264
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118264
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The ICE for 4.6.4 was:
:9:32: internal compiler error: in build_data_member_initialization, at
cp/semantics.c:5553
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118264
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-03
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118286
Bug ID: 118286
Summary: go crypto/tls test falis (TestVerifyConnection, bad
certificate)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117997
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Definitely the bzip.go bits as opposed to the crc32.go bits. No other insights
yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118239
--- Comment #3 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/672567.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] Cray
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118283
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
You could always compile the packages that fail with C23 with -std=gnu17 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118284
--- Comment #2 from Tommy Murphy ---
Hi Andrew - oh - sorry for logging it in the wrong place and thanks for the
clarification. I'll log it against Binutils/as. Thanks again. Tommy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Now we just try to evaluate it with the B type.
As intended, yes.
> just the final MODIFY_EXPR (D.2922 = 0; in there) wasn't for
> whatever reason converted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|GCC fails to ident
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117938
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:355475e332f264107ef07555f7c379be7b85942f
commit r15-6551-g355475e332f264107ef07555f7c379be7b85942f
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118284
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118285
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-03
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117825
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I wonder if we just shouldn't call check_function_arguments at all from
cp_build_function_call_vec when complain doesn't contain tf_warning.
At least, build_over_call doesn't call it in that case.
So
--- gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118275
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118275
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f444e45d3fd6c45fc34a79ac66bf46c20fd95b1
commit r15-6548-g6f444e45d3fd6c45fc34a79ac66bf46c20fd95b1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7754a2fb2e60987524947fe189f3ffac035ea1d
commit r15-6545-gc7754a2fb2e60987524947fe189f3ffac035ea1d
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103924
--- Comment #8 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
> Interesting, mind creating a separate PR for this? It could be a considered a
> regression since GCC 13 accepts the code.
Done! It's PR118285.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118285
--- Comment #1 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
As noted PR103924, the testcase is actually accepted by GCC 13 (in C++23 mode),
so this looks like a regression. https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/zMK3ceE5M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118285
Bug ID: 118285
Summary: GCC rejects some constexpr std::string usages
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105168
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the above reduced testcase, this is in the 3rd cxx_eval_outermost_expression
call when object is non-NULL, in the first two cases TREE_TYPE (object) and
initialized_type (t) are the same, but in the thir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
This one is kind of a pain because a lot depends on MLT. Any workaround I can
apply to it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118169
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118244
Brecht Sanders changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118284
Bug ID: 118284
Summary: [RISCV] No compressed c.j for offsets of -2044, -2046,
-2048
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107759
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107759
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106749
Bug 106749 depends on bug 107759, which changed state.
Bug 107759 Summary: Implement C++23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107759
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106749
Bug 106749 depends on bug 107758, which changed state.
Bug 107758 Summary: Implement C++23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107758
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107758
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103924
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
N.B. the other testcases in this PR are accepted by GCC 14 after r14-10134.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103924
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #5)
> Here's an even simpler testcase, rejected by GCC but accepted by Clang (with
> libstdc++):
Interesting, mind creating a separate PR for this? It could be a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118201
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly reduced:
class A {};
class B : public virtual A {};
struct C : public virtual A { virtual unsigned int foo () const = 0; };
class D : public virtual B, public virtual C {};
struct E { virtual ~E ()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118138
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118220
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118283
--- Comment #4 from Brecht Sanders
---
Thanks for clarifying.
So it seems this is by design and there is nothing to fix in GCC.
Unfortunately that means a lot of packages will need to fix their source if
they still want them to build using th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118194
--- Comment #8 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> (In reply to vvinayag from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > > > I suppose Glibc sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118283
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Brecht Sanders from comment #0)
> - `bool` now seems to be defined in C. Several projects use bool as a
> variable name or define it using typedef, both of which will result in
> compile errors.
Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118283
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Brecht Sanders from comment #0)
We hit a bunch of issues like this during the 14 cycle when we started to
enforce C99 properly and fixed issues like this while we were there. Recent
versions of aut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118283
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118283
Bug ID: 118283
Summary: Issues when building with GCC15+MinGW-w64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118276
--- Comment #10 from Ben FrantzDale ---
I see the same codegen with `alignas(long) T a[n] = {};`:
https://godbolt.org/z/z93KEnoao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118250
--- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl ---
With the modification I plan for Stage 1 the DP alg will be as powerful as the
greedy alg here.
By LLVM code being better I suppose you mean this lower bound check:
cmp eax, 1
jle .L4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103924
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dangelog at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118245
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nshead at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100358
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c3dee768a9f7aa384150e4e4a584d6aa1db5e97
commit r14-11125-g1c3dee768a9f7aa384150e4e4a584d6aa1db5e97
Author: Nathaniel Sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115008
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c3dee768a9f7aa384150e4e4a584d6aa1db5e97
commit r14-11125-g1c3dee768a9f7aa384150e4e4a584d6aa1db5e97
Author: Nathaniel S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118239
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-03
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117186
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118163
--- Comment #3 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672168.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118078
--- Comment #4 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672144.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117775
--- Comment #3 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/670422.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114292
--- Comment #7 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/671590.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109918
--- Comment #13 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/665650.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114619
--- Comment #4 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/665905.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115271
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Testcase (already in the tree):
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-variant-2.f90
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-variant-2-aux.f90
...
+! Test XFAILed due to https://gcc.gnu.org/PR115271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118282
Bug ID: 118282
Summary: GCC fails to identify feasible type conversion scheme
between operands of conditional expression
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
96 matches
Mail list logo