https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92736
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90915
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90748
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90255
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81419
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
commit r9-8363-g716cc43745fb11ea883684d55e62fe2c1694902b
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu Mar 12 13:36:17 2020 +0100
Backport 314b91220a07bd63f13c58e37f1b5b9430a3702b
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|9.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #30 from Martin Liška ---
commit r10-7143-g54f46d82f54ba7a4110cef102b7c18eaf8b4b6bd
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 12 03:47:45 2020 -0700
i386: Use ix86_output_ssemov for MMX TYPE_SSEMOV
There is no need to set mode attrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94130
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94153
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |error-recovery
Summary|intern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94153
--- Comment #3 from Slava Barinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Well, it's ICE on invalid code which is very common case.
Hm. So no need to report them?
> Was the original file a valid code?
I've been reducing builtins-string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Transformations to indirect calls and hoisting function addresses out of loops
is fine. That sort of thing has nothing to do with this problem.
The problem is that the PLT really is volatile, and the inline PL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68903
--- Comment #2 from trzeci ---
Simpler test:
struct A
{
int a = 3;
};
struct B : public A
{};
struct C : public virtual B
{
int c = a;
};
#include
int main()
{
C c;
std::cout << c.a << " " << c.c << std::endl;
return 0;
}
outputs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.3.0
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> OTOH CSEing the load from the PLT once it is resolved _would_ be an
> optimization.
Possibly. Sometimes making the call sequence seem more efficient runs into
sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94155
Bug ID: 94155
Summary: internal compiler error: in gimplify_init_ctor_eval,
at gimplify.c:4664
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94155
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #1 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94148
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > OTOH CSEing the load from the PLT once it is resolved _would_ be an
> > optimization.
>
> Possibly. Sometimes mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #7 from Avi Kivity ---
That commit is in gcc 9.3, so I'm guessing 9.3 is affected too.
5c7938eb3f1a116b1cf9a28090f2cc5e08814ce4 tags/releases/gcc-9.3.0~221
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94153
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Slava Barinov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Well, it's ICE on invalid code which is very common case.
> Hm. So no need to report them?
Well, we have a bazilli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93805
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Reduced test case:
$ cat 93805.C
struct B
{
B() {}
};
struct C
{
B b = B();
};
C c;
$ g++ -Wnoexcept 93805.C
93805.C:11:3: warning: noexcept-expression evaluates to ‘false’ because of a
call to ‘B::B()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94155
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
5c7938eb3f1a116b1cf9a28090f2cc5e08814ce4 is a different change to
58487c21b6a47c3fff6c6958684de866216a5593
The gcc-9 commit that corresponds to 58487c21b6a47c3fff6c6958684de866216a5593
is d9940358fa463060
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #9 from Avi Kivity ---
Thanks. I'll test 9.3 as soon as it hits koji.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a fix for master, I'm just trying to figure out why we aren't seeing
this on the gcc-9 branch too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it doesn't show up for gcc-9 because there are also std::tuple changes
on master that make the bug show up.
And I think what's happening is another instance of PR 41437. When
std::optional is inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94156
Bug ID: 94156
Summary: Multiple definition of destructor and non-virtual
thunk for classes that use multiple inheritance when
building static library
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94129
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
@Richi: Can you please enable zstd for our nvptx cross compiler:
$ x86_64-suse-linux-accel-nvptx-none-gcc-10 -v
...
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
We'll need to add
BuildRequires: libzstd-devel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The resolved address can only change before the first call to it, so we
could even automatically insert code checking that, perhaps.
My other concern is not slowing down the code if LD_BIND_NOW is in u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 66475, which changed state.
Bug 66475 Summary: Access checking in templates circumvented with 'using'
(C++11)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66475
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79163
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 79163, which changed state.
Bug 79163 Summary: Access-checking not done in template argument list of
partial specialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79163
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-19 00:00:00 |2020-3-12
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|2010-09-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94135
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Both subfic and neg are 1-2 if run on the integer units. neg can run on
more units, but it is always 2 cycles then! (And the conditions where you
*can* have 1 cycle are not very often satisfied, anyway
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Not relate to parameter packs. Also happens with normal member functions:
template class A {
template class B {
B(A::B&);
void fn(A::B &);
};
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94057
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
The root cause isn't the C++20 feature it seems. The following version with
explicit 'typename' is rejected, but compiles fine with clang/icc:
template class A {
template class B {
B(typename A::B&)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94156
--- Comment #1 from Michał Urbański ---
This discussion looks related:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2003-09/msg00984.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54164
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53102
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Bug ID: 94157
Summary: [10 Regression] error: lto-wrapper failed with
-Wa,--noexecstack -Wa,--noexecstack
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93566
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
void
foo (int *x)
{
int c[10] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
int bar (int i) { return c[i]; }
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:x[:10])
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
x[i] = bar (i);
}
ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] error: |[10 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58590
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Version|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64259
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
commit r9-8364-g08f00a213f8a1b99bbf3ad3c337dea249a288cf1
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date: Fri Mar 6 10:04:51 2020 +
arm: correct constraints on movsi_compare0 [PR91913]
The peephole that detect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
commit r8-10119-g3d46f4875c6c50e8095294b6b700d6678a7e2f1e
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date: Fri Mar 6 10:04:51 2020 +
arm: correct constraints on movsi_compare0 [PR91913]
The peephole that detec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94063
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
commit r9-8369-g7ef07b622d8c2fca35813bf50669dcd663fe5cf2
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Thu Mar 12 17:39:05 2020 +
libstdc++: Handle type-changing path concatenations (PR 94063)
The filesystem:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93244
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate, will send it to GCC patches mailing list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64924
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
--- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> I've got a patch candidate, will send it to GCC patches mailing list.
Sorry for the breakage, and thanks for taking a look!
Regards,
Prathames
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89636
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78286
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michele.caini at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #20 from cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at gnu dot org ---
YA test via email.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #21 from cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at gnu dot org ---
Test with directory permissions set.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69778
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93218
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yet another test.
--- Comment #27 from cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at gnu dot org ---
This time with no directory mods.
201 - 300 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
