https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-30
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113467
--- Comment #28 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> this also fixes mpfr + gmp tests, thank you!
just ftr: the mpfr/gmp issue might actually be PR113576
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113665
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Well, ICF figures out the other part of the partial inlined test() are equal
and I think they are. The
if (i >= S){
return false;
}
tests are inlined and eliminated (I think c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #25)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #24)
> > Just to avoid confusion, are you still working on this one Richi?
>
> I'm working on a patch to add a target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #28 from Hongtao Liu ---
I saw we already maskoff integral modes for vector mask in store_constructor
/* Use sign-extension for uniform boolean vectors with
integer modes and single-bit mask entries.
Ef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47b81161c98cf2ff5495d4aa6386cc3c87f9d27b
commit r14-8515-g47b81161c98cf2ff5495d4aa6386cc3c87f9d27b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113659
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is similar to gcc.c-torture/execute/20150611-1.c, this time
the main exit ends in a path without a virtual use (__builtin_unreachable ()).
We can do the same as we do for the alternate exits he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113657
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #28)
> I saw we already maskoff integral modes for vector mask in store_constructor
>
> /* Use sign-extension for uniform boolean vectors with
> intege
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113658
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-30
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101195
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26c9b95b9f712ff1f813351b5d45371620085221
commit r14-8516-g26c9b95b9f712ff1f813351b5d45371620085221
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113603
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7250c1e02478586a0cd6d5cb67bf4d17249a7e7
commit r14-8517-gd7250c1e02478586a0cd6d5cb67bf4d17249a7e7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113658
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It doesn't help that __has_feature/__has_extension is very badly documented,
obviously the best meaning for a feature check would be that the selected
builtins are usable in constexpr expressions if they are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE |[12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113656
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113665
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 regression]|[11/12/13/14 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The question is revert what exactly?
If we revert r14-6210, we get back the other P1. Or do you mean revert
r14-5355?
I guess another option is move the vzeroupper pass one pass later, i.e. after
pass_gcse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
It looks like x264_pixel_satd_16x16 consumes more time after my commit, an
extracted case is as below, note there's no attribute((always_inline)) in the
original x264_pixel_satd_8x4, it's added to force inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113600
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
Guess explicit .REDUC_PLUS instead of original VEC_PERM_EXPR somehow impacts
the store split decision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113636
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aeec7d87a28ac80c64ebfa88cef3dccee3ba8efc
commit r14-8518-gaeec7d87a28ac80c64ebfa88cef3dccee3ba8efc
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113623
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa2739ac1b74769d97fba34db9b9a8aa8786539e
commit r14-8519-gfa2739ac1b74769d97fba34db9b9a8aa8786539e
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b3b3788c579856abcfdc6eed589c64dc7e88cdb
commit r14-8520-g7b3b3788c579856abcfdc6eed589c64dc7e88cdb
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:506e74f53a5e4f607284d3c41da17cdd3eca4fb8
commit r14-8521-g506e74f53a5e4f607284d3c41da17cdd3eca4fb8
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112861
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1d144d80f27f7a027ec8a05758555e7aa45462f
commit r14-8522-gd1d144d80f27f7a027ec8a05758555e7aa45462f
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113623
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113636
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #30 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
> But that's just for CONSTRUCTORs, we got the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR path for
> VECTOR_CSTs. But yeah, that _might_ argue we should perform the same
> masking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> The question is revert what exactly?
> If we revert r14-6210, we get back the other P1. Or do you mean revert
> r14-5355?
> I guess another option is move th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> > The question is revert what exactly?
> > If we revert r14-6210, we get back the other P1. Or do you mean rev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113576
>
> --- Comment #30 from Richard Sandiford ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57258&action=edit
gcc14-pr113059.patch
So in patch form like this. Untested so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> Created attachment 57258 [details]
> gcc14-pr113059.patch
>
> So in patch form like this. Untested so far.
LGTM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113659
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c2169d2f4061e72e1e61e9a175d16f7ff50f5c0
commit r14-8524-g4c2169d2f4061e72e1e61e9a175d16f7ff50f5c0
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113166
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
#include
#include
template
inline vuint8m1_t tail_load(void const* data);
template<>
inline vuint8m1_t tail_load(void const* data) {
uint64_t const* ptr64 = reinterpret_cast(data);
#if 1
const vuin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113664
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Krah ---
> So the diagnostic messages leave a lot to be desired but in the end
> they point to a problem in your code which is a guard against a NULL 's'.
Hmm, the real code is used to print floating point numbers and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, I have quickly looked at REG_UNUSED notes on insn-recog.cc (as a randomly
picked large GCC object). Ignoring REG_UNUSED notes for flags register (which
are extremely common in lots of passes), seems w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113656
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113664
--- Comment #6 from Stefan Krah ---
Sometimes you hear "code should be rewritten" because squashing the warnings
makes it better.
I disagree. I've seen many segfaults introduced in projects that rush
to squash warnings.
Sometimes, analyzers ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
Hi, Richard.
Now, I find the time to GCC vectorization optimization.
I find this case:
_2 = a[_1];
...
a[i_16] = _4;
,,,
_7 = a[_1];---> This load should be eliminated and re-use _2.
Am I right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57259&action=edit
gcc14-pr113059-2.patch
Untested patch to remove the notes instead of moving the pass around further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113663
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Known to fail|13.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #8)
> Hi, Richard.
>
> Now, I find the time to GCC vectorization optimization.
>
> I find this case:
>
> _2 = a[_1];
> ...
> a[i_16] = _4;
> ,,,
> _7 = a[_1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The huge names make the assembly quite unreadable, so I've tried to reduce it a
little bit further:
pr113617.h:
namespace {
template struct J { static constexpr int value = V; };
template using K = J;
usi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 57260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57260&action=edit
A final patch
This patch provides the necessary changes with only minor adjustment to
existing gfortran test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113654
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f382376660069e49290fdb51861abdec63519c7
commit r14-8627-g9f382376660069e49290fdb51861abdec63519c7
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622
--- Comment #21 from Xi Ruoyao ---
This still blows up on LoongArch even after r14-8498:
typedef float __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))) vec;
typedef int __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))) ivec;
register vec a asm("f25"), b asm("f26");
registe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622
--- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
On x86_64:
$ cat t.c
typedef float __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))) vec;
typedef int __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))) ivec;
register vec a asm("xmm0"), b asm("xmm1");
register ivec c asm("xmm2");
void
tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108323
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-01-07 00:00:00 |2024-1-30
--- Comment #1 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106358
Bug 106358 depends on bug 113654, which changed state.
Bug 113654 Summary: [14 Regression] -Wanalyzer-allocation-size false positive
seen on Linux kernel's drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113654
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109867
Piotr Nycz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotrwn1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81271
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
--- Comment #11 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Oh interesting. So the purpose of this test was just to record that GCC outputs
incorrect locations for this case, I wanted to xfail it and then fix it
properly for GCC 15. I did not consider that it might ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113667
Bug ID: 113667
Summary: [14 Regression] libgphobos symbols missing
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111268
Richard Ball changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ricbal02 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113668
Bug ID: 113668
Summary: [14 Regression] libgo soname bump needed for the GCC
14 release?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622
>
> --- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> On x86_64:
>
> $ cat t.c
> typedef float _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Lewis Hyatt ---
> Oh interesting. So the purpose of this test was just to record that GCC
> outputs
> incorrect locations for this case, I wanted to xfail it an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113512
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1bb2e52cc69902c7bf00fbdd094e948803222946
commit r13-8261-g1bb2e52cc69902c7bf00fbdd094e948803222946
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113500
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5aca83ca9c7fac895d10eb7b3e14b1927ec1eac
commit r13-8263-ga5aca83ca9c7fac895d10eb7b3e14b1927ec1eac
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113669
Bug ID: 113669
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined failed to check a signed integer
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113640
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113644
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af37bef86199e50368cbfbc97befe0622a07f12f
commit r14-8630-gaf37bef86199e50368cbfbc97befe0622a07f12f
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113644
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #24 from Alex Coplan -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113669
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is because already the FE optimizes it, when it sees that
((int)(g_B * g_A[1])) & (g_A[1] & g_A[0]) | g_A[0]
is just being added to unsigned char element, the upper bits of it aren't
needed, so the mult
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113640
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0857a00fe3226db8801384743b6d44353dcac9da
commit r14-8631-g0857a00fe3226db8801384743b6d44353dcac9da
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113640
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113670
Bug ID: 113670
Summary: ICE with vectors in named registers and
-fno-vect-cost-model
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113670
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|13.2.0 |
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It's di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113670
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Quoting the observation from Richard:
> We end up with the invalid
>
> _28 = (sizetype) &a;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113582
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch approved for GCC 15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643999.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110358
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch for [[gnu::non_owning]] posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643998.html
Not sure how important it is to accept the optional argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81271
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> What tool did this warning come from?
Looks like cppcheck to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113300
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Not a regression so I think it has to wait until GCC 15. I'd like to take a
look then.
I've updated https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113671
Bug ID: 113671
Summary: Passing allocatable character(:) slices with negative
stride: invalid memory access / segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113443
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113451
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd7aa986fd12fc24e9d2efb8a8b267acb2bf19ea
commit r14-8632-gdd7aa986fd12fc24e9d2efb8a8b267acb2bf19ea
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110075
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
It's hard to decide. It seems that once we've covered std::span-like classes,
in practice the warning points out real issues. I would hope that code like
you posted is actually fairly rare. But it's diffi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-30
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113649
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113512
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:209fc1e5f6c67e55e579b69f617b0b678b1bfdf0
commit r14-8633-g209fc1e5f6c67e55e579b69f617b0b678b1bfdf0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111444
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo