https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96120
--- Comment #3 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #0)
> > GCC might emit the ambiguity diagnostic message on it.
>
> What does that mean?
Apologize for my expression. I mean th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
gcc warns for this at the level of actual instructions, not user code. Since A
is empty, nothing uninitialized is getting copied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
And this translation unit doesn't actually generate any code at all, so the way
the warning is currently implemented has no chance of even looking at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
Adding members and usage does not make a difference
https://godbolt.org/z/VommHu
struct A {
A();
int i;
};
struct B {
B(A);
int i;
};
struct composed2 {
B b_;
A a_;
composed2() : b_(a_) {}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Yes, then we are back to the fact that it works for A=int but not for A a class
containing an int.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #35 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
That's a reasonable idea Eric -- the barriers are primarily there for the
benefit of CFG building and manipulation and thus provide marginal, if any,
benefit once we hit the reorg pass.
I recall 81025 bein
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
@Bin: Any news about this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95497
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9eb7d0d76eb652caa9186766da4fe965f113b1b8
commit r11-1947-g9eb7d0d76eb652caa9186766da4fe965f113b1b8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95497
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95497
--- Comment #4 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Thank you for fixing!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96122
Bug ID: 96122
Summary: Segfault when using finalizer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17327d6cc73672ada0c6608f70e0894144b1f54b
commit r10-8439-g17327d6cc73672ada0c6608f70e0894144b1f54b
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95972
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:006fda1b17a4d55b6548a1b3bd7efd0d8e40b6c4
commit r9-8727-g006fda1b17a4d55b6548a1b3bd7efd0d8e40b6c4
Author: Harald Anlauf
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95293
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> Isn't it an aliasing problem?
No. It is not an aliasing problem. It is an invalid
program giving a result that the programmer does not
expect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96085
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1fa08dcac686ca5b6d84e64c9f5813daef59f540
commit r11-1949-g1fa08dcac686ca5b6d84e64c9f5813daef59f540
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96085
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
Bug ID: 96123
Summary: [10, trunk] segment fault with NTTP fixed_string
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
--- Comment #1 from Toni Neubert ---
:23:28: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
23 | using type = Token;
|^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96123
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95159
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lutztonineubert at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96120
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #3)
> Apologize for my expression. I mean the meaning of the error message
> "invalid use of type ‘void’ in parameter declaration" is opposite with the
> valid grammar(it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96124
Bug ID: 96124
Summary: Template specialization auto
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96070
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125
Bug ID: 96125
Summary: __attribute__((target("cpu=power10,mma"))) does not
set TARGET_MMA
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96122
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96122
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Confirmed. For me it segfaults from GCC7 up to GCC11.
Interesting. This started occurring for me when I updated from GCC10.1 to 11.
But, the code I posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
Looks like some missing code in rs6000_option_override_internal() to enable
TARGET_MMA by default when -mcpu=power10 is used, similar to how we handle
-mprefix. I'm testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95925
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95927
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96045
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96045
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Regressed with r11-338-g2a0225e47868fbfceaecaa5e2de96c1c5a2251ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96126
Bug ID: 96126
Summary: conflicting attribute section accepted on
redeclaration
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96126
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96048
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96060
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-08
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96064
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96060
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||milasudril at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Actually, it's more complicated than that. We only initialize the target
builtins once, using the command line option values and not again using the
target attribute/pragma values. That means we basically h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93788
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 95930 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95930
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95945
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95932
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95954
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95956
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95968
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95982
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90782
Michael Bruck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruck.michael at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90782
--- Comment #5 from Michael Bruck ---
(In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #4)
ugh that was for PR96097
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96097
--- Comment #5 from Michael Bruck ---
Further simplified code
template typename>
void func() {}
template
struct Y {};
void test()
{
func();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79815
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96126
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87736
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
--- Comment #6 from Jolyon <499537630 at qq dot com> ---
I agree that we really can't do this in the test. GCC's inconsistencies with
this behavior are beyond the developers' consideration(the behavior of DSE
pass). I tried to initialize the struc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> @Bin: Any news about this?
Patch is approved, will apply soon. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96108
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
My question was rather do you an original code where we are now missing an
optimization and you reduced the code down to this and what happens if you
correct the issue of using an uninit pointer (because unle
Hi All,
I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for asking about
(possible) g++ issues. If not, I'd appreciate it if someone can point
me to the right one.
With that said, here goes...
I have an strange (to me) issue, where trying to compile a header
which has a single "std::unordered_set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
The core issue here is that unordered_map key type is std::string while you
insert const char* which explains the temporary.
In f2 you use insert(Pair&&) method so a temporary is generated but then moved
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96066
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the builtin __atomic_fetch_add should not be used directly from the JIT
front-end, rather __atomic_fetch_add_N should be used instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96093
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95524
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95488
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
101 - 169 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
