https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117936
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117936
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90b6d3bc84da803e14627548545626215a127b4d
commit r15-6565-g90b6d3bc84da803e14627548545626215a127b4d
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #27 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, that's unfortunate :/ Looking at the log, it says:
/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
skipping incompatible
/var/tmp/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118200
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Posted patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672269.html
It simply skips processing of simduid if it's not default def (which AFAIU
indicates it's in SIMT region)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118200
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 60051
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60051&action=edit
simduid dump that's input to vectorizer pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106864
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
prune_lambda_captures is supposed to prune these but it looks like it is not
pruning it always.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109114
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
But this works:
```
struct a
{
a() = delete;
a(const a&) = default;
int x;
char y;
};
struct b
{
b() = delete;
b(const b&) = default;
char y;
};
template
struct Callables : T ... {
Callables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unexpected capture of |Const int captured could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rush102333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #26 from Sam James ---
If you need me to, I can try create a Dockerfile or something to reproduce it,
if you can't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #25 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60050
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60050&action=edit
config.log.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #24 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60049
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60049&action=edit
build.log.xz
(I tried emailing this but nvidia's mail system rejected it and thought it
looked like spam.)
Unfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #23 from Sam James ---
Hi Prathamesh, I'll pull it in to our patchset and let you know of any
problems. Appreciate again you two working on this because it's going to solve
a lot of pain and hackery needed in build systems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #22 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi, the patch posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20241220/0c361030/attachment-0001.txt
fixes the issues with multilib configs and libdruntime.
@all: Could yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Nested lambda with a single |Const int captured if used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118312
Bug ID: 118312
Summary: Nested lambda with a single return type seems to take
too much memory
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: code-siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99670
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-06
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> As I mentioned documentation is the correct fix and it is already handled.
> If folks don't read the documentation that is on them. Doing a preview for
> future lang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
It also won't help unless people read the documentation anyway because the
experimental status is also about ABI. People may well assume that experimental
is OK if it builds fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117958
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
I'm never really sure if we should count them as regressions or not, given it's
more likely they'll go unnoticed if we say they aren't, and it's a regression
if you compare testsuie results. But I don't disagree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117958
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|---
Summary|[15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117958
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117958
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117952
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118311
Bug ID: 118311
Summary: Poorly optimized trivial integer serialization due to
vectorizer on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-06
Component|tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118310
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
We definitely have other bugs for poor byte-extraction (but usually in the
context of swaps).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117951
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #5)
> Jeff removed himself from CC list, so I presume he thinks this
> is not a gcse bug.
I think Jeff did it en-masse for bugs so I wouldn't say he necessarily think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118310
Bug ID: 118310
Summary: Poorly optimized trivial integer serialization
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118308
--- Comment #3 from Raffaello Bertini ---
ok thanks for the reply. btw it is enough to enable the warnigs.
```
bool f()
{
printf("f");
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
if (f())
printf("y");
else
printf("n");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118309
Bug ID: 118309
Summary: d: Forward referenced enums missing type names in
debug info
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108476
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raffaellobertini at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118308
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is only undefined behavior if you use the value from a function which has a
return type but does not return a value.
The example you have in comment #0 is 100% well defined C code.
Note C++ is different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118307
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
struct A {
&&A(){}
};
```
Also gives the same odd error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118308
Bug ID: 118308
Summary: compiling code that should return without a return
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118307
Bug ID: 118307
Summary: Odd error message for &ctor(){}
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.4.6
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118304
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://github.com/llvm/llv |
|m-project/issues/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118306
Bug ID: 118306
Summary: Accepts invalid ctor with * in front
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118304
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The accepts invalid might be a different issue all together.
It is because it has been accepted since 3.4.6, I will note clang also accepts
it while EDG and MSV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118305
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118234
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118300
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|False malloc leak warning |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118305
Bug ID: 118305
Summary: Wrong deduced type for array bound
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118304
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Caused by
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;
> h=a2746e4347076ea48f4aeb28e13e6337ff7799ad .
I should say the ice is caused by that.
The accepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118304
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-05
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118304
Bug ID: 118304
Summary: [15 regression] ICE on invalid constructor with an
asterisk
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #32 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #31)
> (In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #30)
> > (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #28)
> > > I haven't tried yet, but do you mean something like the follo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118199
--- Comment #17 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/672616.html (the fix is
not a simple tweak of the fix for PR c++/114619).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I should say the ones which are currently xfailed for hppa 32bit.
I know there's some overlap, but they're not all the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118265
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Adam Ryan from comment #5)
> Hi Andrew, is that the test case you want to go into the patch? I had
> thought since that the test case would be better with parameter pack
> containing function re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think these can just be xfailed like it was done for hppa 32bit as
> mentioned in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92548#c2 on why they fail
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118302
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118302
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60048
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60048&action=edit
Another testcase
If you remove const or static for N inside the template function, GCC will
reject it too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118303
Bug ID: 118303
Summary: Various behaviours exposed by the testsuite result
dependent on TARGET_CALLEE_COPIES
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118156
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118274
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118274
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|expression funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118255
--- Comment #4 from Simon Martin ---
Patch submitted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/672606.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Summary|Weird error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118208
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|sem_ch8 Program_Error. |Program_Error raised on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118265
--- Comment #5 from Adam Ryan ---
Hi Andrew, is that the test case you want to go into the patch? I had thought
since that the test case would be better with parameter pack containing
function references as the current one only compiles from c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118203
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118082
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118302
Bug ID: 118302
Summary: Invalid 'static_cast' from derived type to private
based type is not rejected during in-class
initialization of static const member of template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #13 from Benjamin Buch ---
According to the CLI interface I opened a backwards compatible feature request:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301
Bug ID: 118301
Summary: Feature request: CLI parament std with explicit
experimental values
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118280
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Note that a microblaze-unknown-linux-gnu toolchain builds just fine with
gcc-14, glibc, and c++ enabled, so perhaps it's a _bit_ premature to deprecate
it just because of these failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117707
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Newest range is g:32a3f46ca5437261 .. g:a54aa75ab30eb1a1,
which is 30 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118234
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118234
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c7c99f95661db80b6e1b52c10c34e9ce9c5eb6a
commit r12-10883-g6c7c99f95661db80b6e1b52c10c34e9ce9c5eb6a
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118234
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b618e2e883ffada66f6c0c6a6a672f35286413c
commit r12-10882-g9b618e2e883ffada66f6c0c6a6a672f35286413c
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118234
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8b53a5263946be717169e2549eabf67e6a227ad
commit r12-10881-ge8b53a5263946be717169e2549eabf67e6a227ad
Author: Marc Poulhiès
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> gcc trunk seems to break sometime between g:3e89a4d5138,
> dated 2024-11-18 and g:e1009b3de2d, dated 2024-12-02.
>
> This is 476 commits. I will run a bisec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
gcc trunk seems to break sometime between g:3e89a4d5138,
dated 2024-11-18 and g:e1009b3de2d, dated 2024-12-02.
This is 476 commits. I will run a bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118234
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118234
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118199
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118296
--- Comment #5 from terryinzaghi ---
Yes, i think this wrong syntax should output a error(indicating cant deduce
{...}) instead of output internal compiler error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118300
Bug ID: 118300
Summary: False malloc leak warning from static analyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
94 matches
Mail list logo
