https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100369
Bug ID: 100369
Summary: crash after error in
gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vgetq_lane_s64_indices_1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100350
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100352
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-01
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370
Bug ID: 100370
Summary: [11.1.0 regression] Incorrect warning for placement
new
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100371
Bug ID: 100371
Summary: Fortran asynchronous I/O: ASAN (memory leak) + TASN
(potential dead lock) warning with
libgomp.fortran/async_io_*.f90
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372
Bug ID: 100372
Summary: ICE with variadic template template, internal compiler
error: in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1544
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
Mark O'Donovan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shiftee at posteo dot net
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100373
Bug ID: 100373
Summary: [12 Regression] Darwin, Compare-debug fail after
r12-248-gb58dc0b803057
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100373
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48097
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cfcaa4609ee3e3557ddf50fda00fdf9a5fc07e4
commit r9-9492-g6cfcaa4609ee3e3557ddf50fda00fdf9a5fc07e4
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44107
--- Comment #36 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cfcaa4609ee3e3557ddf50fda00fdf9a5fc07e4
commit r9-9492-g6cfcaa4609ee3e3557ddf50fda00fdf9a5fc07e4
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #31 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d29d0d630caac54dbcc6c3fb961258a011a30fc
commit r9-9497-g3d29d0d630caac54dbcc6c3fb961258a011a30fc
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #54 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Bounty Claim:
Please not that "saaadhu"s patch was "shelved". I integrated a validation-setup
and tested several existent solutions, and identified during the "reuse
existent work" phase of my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #55 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to abebeos from comment #54)
> Now, there is a strange tendency within this project to completely ignore my
> work on this issue/bounty and my person, see e.g. here:
You have no claim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100238
Markus Böck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100374
Bug ID: 100374
Summary: Type-constraints of member function templates should
not be substituted into during implicit instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #56 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Oh, Mr. Glaubitz, thank you for your opinion.
It is you very personal choice to ignore "integration work" and label "reuse of
existent results" as "copy". I assume this does not reflect on pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
--- Comment #13 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
You're right. I thought they were compiling against GCC trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
Bug ID: 100375
Summary: [12 Regression] trunk 20210501 ftbfs for nvptx-none
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r12-220-gd96db15967e78d7cecea3b1cf3169ceb924678ac ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What type is pseudo_node_t? If the pair members are pointers, use nullptr not
0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
typedef struct basic_block_def *basic_block;
typedef std::pair pseudo_node_t;
So pseudo_node_t (nullptr, 0);
or pseudo_node_t (NULL, 0);
(given
#ifdef __cplusplus
#undef NULL
#define NULL nullptr
#endif
)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW, one workaround for this kind of constraint looping is to encode the
non-dependent conversion as a constraint. For this particular testcase, this
would mean changing the signature of
template auto in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86206
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree that there is a strange bookkeeping issue.
Swapping the order of the two functions in comment#0 makes the ICE go away.
Printing forall_save, nvar, total_var in gfc_resolve_forall may give
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93383
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89565
Bug 89565 depends on bug 93383, which changed state.
Bug 93383 Summary: ICE on accessing field of a structure which is non-type
template parameter, -std=c++2a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93383
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89565
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99200
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99683
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97749
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janpmoeller at gmx dot de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100376
Bug ID: 100376
Summary: __gnu_cxx::stdio_filebuf does not work correctly on
windows
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100376
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
What thing very wierd is that the code runs correctly under wine but incorrect
on windows, even it is the same program.
D:\hg\fast_io\.tmp\vdso>g++ -o test test.cc -Ofast -std=c++20 -s -flto
-march=native -I../.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377
Bug ID: 100377
Summary: needless stack adjustment when passing struct in
register
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100376
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #1)
> What thing very wierd is that the code runs correctly under wine but
> incorrect on windows, even it is the same program.
>
> D:\hg\fast_io\.tmp\vdso>g++ -o test test.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100378
Bug ID: 100378
Summary: [Regression 9/10/11/12] arm64: lsl + asr used instead
of sxth
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
--- Comment #4 from Frank B. Brokken ---
Dear ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org, you wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
>
> Patrick Palka changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||94173, 90216
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
OTOH, things seems OK on ppc64:
and x86_64:
Because both of those have redzones in their stack ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Rodgers ---
Created attachment 50728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50728&action=edit
Fix wrong thread getting notification
I am testing this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100376
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
i understand what's going on here.
It is because std::filebuf in libstdc++ has a __c_lock data member which is
before the __c_file. However, libstdc++ on windows does not support threading.
A lot of people inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
constructing pair using (0, 0) is non-standard. The point of r12-220
was to deprecate it, so it warns. Apparently I didn't manage to do that
correctly.
I'll look into that, but if you want to initialize a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100238
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #8 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
>
> Most likely the issue is that sout/sfrom are misaligned at runtime, while
> the vectorized code somewhere relies on them being sufficiently aligned for
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
Bug ID: 100379
Summary: cyclades.h is removed from linux kernel header files
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
Bug ID: 100380
Summary: Segfault when using inline asm
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50729|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Please also report this upstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[Regression 9/10/11/12] |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
--- Comment #2 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50731
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50731&action=edit
Working code
So, the segfault seems to happen when creating the variable after creating the
extended asm expression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-02
Status|UNCONFIRM
56 matches
Mail list logo
