https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107574
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Summary|[10/11/12/1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108559
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 108627 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108627
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry, I'm not sure if the false positive in comment 0 can be fixed. I can't
simply compare the type of the temporary argument and the return type, because
we may be returning a subobject of the temporary a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Sure, I could (lookup_member?). It's still just guessing but maybe it would be
worth it. Let me try...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
(For std::any et al I guess we also have to look for void*.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
But even that won't work for Wdangling-reference6.C where the argtype is int
but the rettype is std::pair.
Really, all I could do is to warn only when all the arguments to the function
returning a reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104647
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107574
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101071
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101071
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108158
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |[11/12 Regression]
|m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Very interesting. We're in store_init_value, initializing x with
&TARGET_EXPR }>
but we must lifetime-extend via extend_ref_init_temps and we get
_ZGR1x_.x = (const struct X *) & >>>;, (const struct
X &) &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The cxx_constant_init call actually takes decl=x so we should probably use
that.
value = cxx_constant_init (value, decl);
However, in cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr type is const struct X & and so we
don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106656
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Dimitrij Mijoski from comment #3)
> The documentation for CLI flag -fchar8_t should be updated
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html .
Oh right, this is not an e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
The ICE could be fixed with
--- a/gcc/cp/call.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/call.cc
@@ -13604,9 +13604,13 @@ set_up_extended_ref_temp (tree decl, tree expr,
vec **cleanups,
init = NULL_TREE;
}
else
-/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101073
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
A similar test that doesn't use op=:
struct Y
{
int a;
};
struct X
{
Y b = Y{1};
Y c = this->b;
};
constexpr X o = { };
static_assert(o.b.a == 1 && o.c.a == 1, "");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101588
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101073
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108744
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101099
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101588
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
When fixing this, please adjust g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-nsdmi2.C.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108753
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
--- Comment #23 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm somewhat uneasy about backporting PR102633, to be honest. But I could try
and test gcc 12 to see if it causes any problems, if you want me to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101099
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Well, it's fixed since r13-3639-ga4cd2389276a30c3 which is a revision that
> handles default options. Is it really fixed?
Ah, that commit explains that this is n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
--- Comment #25 from Marek Polacek ---
Okay, let me test the backport then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 102633, which changed state.
Bug 102633 Summary: [11/12 Regression] warning for self-initialization despite
-Wno-init-self
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105593
--- Comment #27 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, I'm not even sure if it applies cleanly but if it does, go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106675
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91846
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramir.sultano at ya dot ru
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108755
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108759
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-13
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107938
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=107532
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry. A patch is on review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
I know you can't jump into a statement expression but that's not what's
happening here. The kernel uses this trick to get the current address for
error messages:
#define __this_address ({ __label__ __here;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #7)
> > I know you can't jump into a statement expression but that's not what's
> > happening here. The kernel uses thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106675
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|[10/11/12/13 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 106080, which changed state.
Bug 106080 Summary: Labels as values triggering -Wdangling-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108833
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] internal |[12 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101073
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah!
Started with
commit dc062b4986328bfeec3ebd744a9c116e28828bf0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Wed Aug 5 13:56:14 2015 -0400
re PR c++/66260 ([C++14] Failure to compile variable template with
recursi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
We get the bogus error because we failed to deduce the auto in
constexpr auto is_pointer_v = is_pointer::value;
to bool.
We call do_auto_deduction and type_unification_real correctly deduces targs to
, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Potential fix:
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -10355,6 +10355,7 @@ lookup_and_finish_template_variable (tree templ, tree
targs,
if (TMPL_PARMS_DEPTH (DECL_TEMPLATE_PARMS (templ)) == 1
&&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-22
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
FWIW, -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow,shift seems to be enough to trigger
the runaway compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 102633, which changed state.
Bug 102633 Summary: [11 Regression] warning for self-initialization despite
-Wno-init-self
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
The C90/C99 difference is due to ubsan_instrument_shift:
193 /* For signed x << y, in C99 and later, the following:
194 (unsigned) x >> (uprecm1 - y)
195 if non-zero, is undefined. */
196 els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
We generate HUGE trees for the div sanitization, but I notice that
c_genericize_control_r doesn't use pset, like cp_genericize_r does. So I think
the fix would be to add a hash_set to c_genericize_control_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Another simple patch is
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt (tree *stmt_p, int
*walk_subtrees, void *data,
tree t = tsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two stmts.
I'm testing:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,8 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> > Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two
> > stmts. I'm testing:
> >
> > ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] slow |[11/12 Regression] slow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, I thought we wanted to use __bdos for -fsanitize=object-size but that has
been done already:
commit 28896b38fabce818e59266b0063a46b3bc1b700f
Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar
Date: Tue May 10 12:51:42 2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107938
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108936
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108960
Bug ID: 108960
Summary: clear tf_partial in instantiate_template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108960
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=108165
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
No, because as Comment 9 says, there's no good way to suppress the warning.
I'm currently leaning towards closing the BZ and suggesting adding a #pragma to
disable the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106259
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
// PR c++/106259
// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
template struct A {
template
struct W { };
};
template<>
struct A {
template
class W { };
};
void
g ()
{
struct A::W w1; // warn
struct A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106259
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I know, in principle, how to fix it, but currently I'm struggling with getting
struct A::W
from
struct A::W
That we haven't found struct A::W in class2loc is actually OK, we don't
have a A specialization, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106259
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107574
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106259
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108542
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108165
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
I would really not like to do that, the false positives rate is pretty low.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
I think p_c_e just needs to handle constexpr functors in templates. I'll poke
more tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108998
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107939
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108975
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107574
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106259
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107938
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 107938, which changed state.
Bug 107938 Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE directly returning `this` of
`extern` variable in template since r11-557
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107938
What|Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108550
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109042
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-06
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108060
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
801 - 900 of 2992 matches
Mail list logo
