https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96107
Bug ID: 96107
Summary: [11 regression] ICE on invalid c++: "Error reporting
routines re-entered." when using -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96107
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Forgot to post actual command. It's the same as for 10.1.0:
$ LANG=C /usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -o bug.o -c -Wall bug.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Btw. one can debug that with the current releases/gcc-10 branch locally in
order to get proper locations.
Thanks Jakub for the analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96098
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96106
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|A friend abbreviated|[10/11 Regression] A friend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96107
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
Haoxin Tu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
Bug ID: 96108
Summary: Different behavior in DSE pass
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109
Bug ID: 96109
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/slp-47.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 48844
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48844&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 slp-47.c.163t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96110
Bug ID: 96110
Summary: Function declarator with a trailing return type "auto"
should be allowed in try-catch block
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96047
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
--- Comment #2 from Jolyon <499537630 at qq dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Did it only change when a is uninitialized or was this a reduction of a
> bigger code and you reduced it too far?
Or you could fix the tauth.c?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95030
--- Comment #2 from Mingye Wang ---
For the sake of completeness, a lot of extra CPUID info is available from
http://users.atw.hu/instlatx64/. This bug will apply to Zhaoxin too, likely as
an alias.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, it's indeed wrong which means we'd fall through the checks that prevent
SPARC from vectorizing here but then we'll create an unaligned access
anyway (because VMAT_STRIDED_SLP is too lazy to figure out ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96111
Bug ID: 96111
Summary: checking type of attribute with concepts results in
compilation error or ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96030
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |target
--- Comment #4 from Domini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
During optimization, we often have branches with dead code that would exhibit
UB if it was ever executed. Cleaning up those branches as much as possible
helps reduce code size, show that some variables (in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase is of course invoking undefined behavior since it dereferences an
uninitialized pointer. I'm not sure there was intentional changes to DSE here
but eliding the store looks reasonable to me (tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92702
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95868
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95682
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96112
Bug ID: 96112
Summary: [OpenACC] 'acc_is_present' if 'byte length is zero'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96113
Bug ID: 96113
Summary: std::vector | std::views::drop_while |
std::views::reverse, cbegin does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96112
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the mapping of objects with zero size is fuzzy at least in OpenMP and
generally, when one just gets a pointer, if there are zero sized objects
involved, one doesn't know if it is the end of some earlier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94975
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96113
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|std::vector | |std::vector |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95935
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=95998
Bug ID: 95998
Summary: gfc_typename use of static memory
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: WAITING
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95293
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95196
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94289
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96111
--- Comment #1 from Klaus Rudolph ---
The error massages are valid as
as got by an answr on SO (
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62791460/checking-type-of-attribute-with-concepts
)
[expr.prim.req.compound]/1.3
If the return-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95972
--- Comment #2 from Haoxin Tu ---
Update a new case.
Input:
int a() { [] ( auto class {int b()}}
Output:
: In function 'int a()':
:1:27: error: types may not be defined in parameter types
1 | int a() { [] ( auto class {int b()}}
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
--- Comment #2 from Yichao Yu ---
Why should this feature be c only?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96113
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |preprocessor
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
--- Comment #4 from Yichao Yu ---
> Apparently it is.
Yes, but my question is about why should this be "WONTFIX". This feature
(reproducible build) is certainly as useful in fortran as it is in C family.
> Let move the component to 'preprocesso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Also note that I've already submitted patches to fix this though
> I haven't got a reply yet.
Where did you submit the patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Rene Rahn from comment #2)
> Ok, thanks for the explanation. I do understand the issue now and why it
> causes the hard error and not an substitution failure.
> But honestly, given that it works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
--- Comment #6 from Yichao Yu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549411.html
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549413.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96103
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a51de1af063b0a9233762dcd6ecf2ea0bdf4cdff
commit r11-1913-ga51de1af063b0a9233762dcd6ecf2ea0bdf4cdff
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95105
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecd56bc41563a84808fe4e1a2c7341bf8a621c92
commit r10-8436-gecd56bc41563a84808fe4e1a2c7341bf8a621c92
Author: Richard Sand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96103
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96114
Bug ID: 96114
Summary: ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:279 since
r7-536-g381cdae49785fc4b
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96113
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
If you need to get the gfortran developers attention, you must submit your
patch to fort...@gcc.gnu.org.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96069
--- Comment #8 from Yichao Yu ---
OK, done. It would be nice to mention it on
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
--- Comment #4 from Rene Rahn ---
> Hmm, if you can't easily specify a concrete return type, then you could maybe
> > try constraining the lambda appropriately. In this particular example you
> could replace the static_assert with an analogous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95694
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:760df6d296b8fc59796f42dca5eb14012fbfa28b
commit r11-1914-g760df6d296b8fc59796f42dca5eb14012fbfa28b
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96114
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95972
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96110
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What is that even supposed to mean?
Rejecting it seems right to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96110
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This isn't specific to catch handlers, other compilers accept that nonsense
function declaration in various contexts, and GCC rejects them all:
using F = auto () -> auto;
template struct X { };
X auto> x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96110
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And this puts Clang into a coma even without debuginfo:
template struct X { T* p; };
X auto> x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96111
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95105
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95105
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96110
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96110
--- Comment #5 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This isn't specific to catch handlers, other compilers accept that nonsense
> function declaration in various contexts, and GCC rejects them all:
Thanks for your c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95972
--- Comment #4 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> You can still use creduce (I do), but it's good to try adding missing
> parens/braces and similar to make the code more sensible.
Yes, you are right. Thanks for you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96115
Bug ID: 96115
Summary: Char literal, decays to a pointer when passed to
function pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96110
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've reported https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46637
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96116
Bug ID: 96116
Summary: GCC accepts "enum struct/class" in reference to
enumeration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96117
Bug ID: 96117
Summary: Cannot mix c++11-style and GCC-style attributes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96116
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Antal Buss from comment #1)
> Created attachment 48811 [details]
> Preprocessed file
For convenience, that is:
#include
int main() {
auto t = std::jthread([](){});
t.request_stop();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96118
Bug ID: 96118
Summary: GCC accepts invalid combination of two type specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95983
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96119
Bug ID: 96119
Summary: GCC accepts invalid qualifier in a try-catch block
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96022
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96022
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96118
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a duplicate of an existing bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96119
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96117
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96120
Bug ID: 96120
Summary: Ambiguity diagnostic message of "invalid use of type
'void' in parameter declaration"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96115
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid, diagnostic |rejects-valid
Status|SUSPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46206
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81836
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-21 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86709
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96118
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79815
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
Bug ID: 96121
Summary: Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96120
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #0)
> GCC might emit the ambiguity diagnostic message on it.
What does that mean?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96120
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC's diagnostic seems fine to me. Using 'void' as the type of a parameter is
invalid. There's a special case for (void) but that isn't relevant to your
declaration, which has two parameters.
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
