https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99951
Bug ID: 99951
Summary: Dead return value after modify_call() is not released
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to mike.robins from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > You need to adjust RTX costing accordingly which likely means adding a new
> > subtarget tuning.
>
> Hi Richard
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99943
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|amker at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99944
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
What's not correct with the diagnostic? The obfuscated printing of f[0]? Or
the misplaced caret?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99950
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Confirmed. The warning sees the IL below. It's not the same as pr83382
> because there's no call to a UBSAN function. The warning here is due to a
> direct use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99894
--- Comment #3 from ZhangMin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> NO.
Thanks, I want to know which version of gcc can support OpenCL?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hum, I can't reproduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99894
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to ZhangMin from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > NO.
>
> Thanks, I want to know which version of gcc can support OpenCL?
NONE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
There's an error reported by valgrind:
==18930== Invalid read of size 8
==18930==at 0x11005A6: quick_push (vec.h:1023)
==18930==by 0x11005A6: quick_push (vec.h:1875)
==18930==by 0x11005A6: safe_pu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99944
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> What's not correct with the diagnostic? The obfuscated printing of f[0]?
Hmm... for the *(unsigned int *)(&f[0]) case, it is correct after all, though
it sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99952
Bug ID: 99952
Summary: Incompatible function call ABI between 7.5 and 9.2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99952
--- Comment #1 from Fenglin Hou ---
I wonder if this is a bug, or I missed some compile option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99953
Bug ID: 99953
Summary: In AVX, SIMD support environment, strlen performance
without optimization is 3 times faster than optimized
strlen function.
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99953
--- Comment #1 from Hyun Sik Park ---
Created attachment 50520
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50520&action=edit
simple test source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947
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=99953
--- Comment #2 from Hyun Sik Park ---
Test environment: gcc version 9.3.0 (Ubuntu 9.3.0–17ubuntu1~20.04)/Acer Aspire
V3–372/Intel(R) Core(TM) i5–6200U CPU @ 2.30GHz 4 Core
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99952
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99952
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From that patch:
"The change is an ABI break due to changing
optional to a trivially copyable type. It's perhaps
better to get that ABI break in now rather than later."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99953
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does -mcpu=native help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99953
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I mean -march=native .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Built r152973 ../configure --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++ ,
installed and built gcc trunk with that as system compiler and can't reproduce
it. Maybe some SUSE patches or the SUSE compiler was c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99953
--- Comment #5 from Hyun Sik Park ---
$ gcc -march=native strlen.c
$ ./a.out
no optimize => 0.07860
o1 optimize => 0.62609
o2 optimize => 0.24775
o3 optimize => 0.22288
Same result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99952
--- Comment #4 from Fenglin Hou ---
Thanks for the quick reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||novemberizing at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Built r152973 ../configure --disable-bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Trying 7, 11, 13 -> 14:
7: r109:TI=[argp:DI]
REG_EQUIV [argp:DI]
11: {r110:TI=r109:TI 0>>0x3f;clobber flags:CC;}
REG_DEAD r109:TI
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
13: {r85:HI=r110:TI#0<-<0x8;cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d11bcbe166c03f722c0e0d41d6e87ac445758fba
commit r11-8025-gd11bcbe166c03f722c0e0d41d6e87ac445758fba
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
Bug ID: 99954
Summary: Copy loop over array of unions at -O3 generates memcpy
instead of memmove, resulting in incorrect code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99953
--- Comment #7 from Hyun Sik Park ---
Thank you.
I was tested and the result is below.
$ ./a.out
no optimize => 0.09640
o1 optimize => 0.09126
o2 optimize => 0.09422
o3 optimize => 0.09081
experiment_optimize_3
17d5: 48 01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947
--- Comment #7 from Haoxin Tu ---
Thank you all for your quick response and fixing!
Cheers,
Haoxin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99955
Bug ID: 99955
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr92618.c violates strict
aliasing rules
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99894
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to ZhangMin from comment #3)
> Thanks, I want to know which version of gcc can support OpenCL?
This is still not a bug report, so doesn't belong in bugzilla.
GCC does not come with OpenCL suppor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The bug seems to be on extract_compound_operation called on
(zero_extract:DI (mem/c:TI (reg/f:DI 16 argp) [3 i+0 S16 A128])
(const_int 16 [0x10])
(const_int 63 [0x3f]))
We have:
else if (unsignedp &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> using -O2 "fixes" the issue on GCC 9 and below but not on 10.
And that changed with r271553
PR tree-optimization/88440
* opts.c (default_options_table): Enable
-ftree-loop-distribute-pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50522&action=edit
gcc11-pr99905.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #49 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks like you didn't rebuild something properly. The __once_functor symbol
should not have changed at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe the X alternatives where we don't know the sign bit mask.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Is there some reason why the patterns are written that way rather than split
> immediately into the AND or XOR? Perhaps it could be done on SUBREGs to
> make it va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
i'm testing
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
gcc/combine.c | 30 ++
modified gcc/combine.c
@@ -1811,6 +1811,33 @@ set_nonzero_bits_and_sign_copies (rtx x, const_rtx set,
void *dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so
(compute_affine_dependence
stmt_a: _1 = MEM[(union container *)p_11 + -4B].value;
stmt_b: p_11->value = _1;
) -> no dependence
where there is indeed no depedence but it looks like this is the wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99955
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d6ad10c170e3670f0b5e3709e0fa6e76b7065b3
commit r11-8026-g0d6ad10c170e3670f0b5e3709e0fa6e76b7065b3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99955
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I fixed the testcase - we should still diagnose the type declaration or make it
DTRT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99940
--- Comment #2 from timburk at live dot co.uk ---
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
gcc is already the newest version (4:6.3.0-4).
gcc set to manually installed.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So, on the #c3 testcase, if I put a breakpoint before and after
> fold_nondependent_expr in finish_static_assert and temporarily in between
> those two breakpoint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The argument is a pointer.
Now, I bet a pointer to an automatic variable will be seen as non-constant and
so in that case we might be ok.
If the argument is a pointer to some global constexpr variable, dunno.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
constexpr void foo(int* x) { ++*x; }
constexpr int bar() {
int* x = new int(0);
foo(x);
foo(x);
int y = *x;
delete x;
return y;
}
static_assert(bar() == 2);
We reject the above testcase for seemi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
Bug ID: 99956
Summary: loop interchange fails when altering bwaves inner loop
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why does it work for:
constexpr int foo(int* x) { return ++*x; }
struct S { constexpr S() : a(0) { foo(&a); foo(&a); } int a; };
constexpr S s;
static_assert (s.a == 2);
though? The argument to foo after con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50523&action=edit
DSE patch
For reference this is the patch adding an additional DSE pass which fails the
existing gfortran.dg/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c01ae2ab6b227e21835d128c90e974dce4604be9
commit r11-8027-gc01ae2ab6b227e21835d128c90e974dce4604be9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99954
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99957
Bug ID: 99957
Summary: Ill-formed std::pair construction supported
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: minor
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> The argument is a pointer.
> Now, I bet a pointer to an automatic variable will be seen as non-constant
> and so in that case we might be ok.
> If the argument is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Sth as simple (and brute-force) as the following fixes this. Somehow SCEV
must already know the "point of failure" though and eventually always
instantiating from loop to loop_nest in steps might be more ef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99957
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2021-03-19 18:36:49.165304923 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2021-04-07 15:33:31.993242067 +0200
@@ -1616,6 +1616,22 @@ cxx_bind_parameters_in_call (const const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the global vars (so PR80039 too), can the problem be anything but when
cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is called on such an object (or part thereof)?
Unfortunately, ctx->object might be NULL, perhaps we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And in #c9 you're right that it could be embedded in CONSTRUCTORs too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b51321bc5193b65b308a26663fc02f786ba6cc89
commit r11-8028-gb51321bc5193b65b308a26663fc02f786ba6cc89
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> And in #c9 you're right that it could be embedded in CONSTRUCTORs too.
Wonder if cp_walk_tree &arg to find the ADDR_EXPR of heap var addresses and
ctx->global-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99958
Bug ID: 99958
Summary: The seems to contain the entire
and in C++20 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99873
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c5b31975e62b4c52d76dc5efd9dc717a361c710
commit r11-8029-g5c5b31975e62b4c52d76dc5efd9dc717a361c710
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f3d9104610cb2058cf091707a20c1c6eff8d470
commit r11-8030-g2f3d9104610cb2058cf091707a20c1c6eff8d470
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99959
Bug ID: 99959
Summary: missing -Wuninitialized for an esra variable with
TREE_NO_WARNING
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99860
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Notes on "restrict":
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/restrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99959
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing -Wuninitialized for |[9/10/11 Regression]
|a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99844
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
We also ICE on
template
struct S {
void fn() noexcept(B);
};
void fn ()
{
S s;
s.fn();
}
so this needs to be fixed more generally than just in explicit().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99805
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e06d3f5dd7d0c6b4a20fe813e6ee5addd097f560
commit r11-8031-ge06d3f5dd7d0c6b4a20fe813e6ee5addd097f560
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99960
Bug ID: 99960
Summary: MVE: Wrong code storing V2DI vector
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99805
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression]|[9/10 Regression]
|f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99950
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937
--- Comment #4 from mike.robins at talktalk dot net ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to mike.robins from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > You need to adjust RTX costing accordingly whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That patch is no good. The combination is not allowed because it is not
known what the "use"s are *for*. Checking if something is from the constant
pools is not enough at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> For the global vars (so PR80039 too), can the problem be anything but when
> cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is called on such an object (or part
> thereof)?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I've posted a series of two patches that will improve things for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/567743.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/567731.html
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 50524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50524&action=edit
WIP Fix
This patch uses IMPLICIT_CONV_EXPR to get the narrowing error, but more and
more changes are being nece
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99795
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99955
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think may_alias ought to work together with vector_size, whatever its
position in the attribute list, i.e. there is a front-end bug here for
which making that combination of attributes wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
