[Bug c++/96060] New: ICE with spaceship default operator returning int

: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt Target Milestone: --- ``` #include struct xx { int a; int operator<=>(const xx&) const = default; }; int f(std::set &x) { x.emplace(0); return 0; } ``` : In in

[Bug c++/96501] New: [C++11] Should warn when classes only have copy constructor defined

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt Target Milestone: --- I see a lot of old code that has copy constructors defined, but not move constructors. This pessimizes code since the definition of the

[Bug libstdc++/32485] New: 'cout << str' segfaults

Summary: 'cout << str' segfaults Product: gcc Version: 4.1.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: nunoplopes at

[Bug libstdc++/32485] 'cout << str' segfaults

--- Comment #2 from nunoplopes at sapo dot pt 2007-06-24 19:07 --- unfortunately I don't have a short reproducing test case. The whole framework is a bit complex to allow me to extract a simple test case. This problem seems to be related with some initialization that is perform

[Bug middle-end/82177] New: Alias analysis too aggressive with integer-to-pointer cast

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt CC: gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr, jeehoon.kang at sf dot snu.ac.kr, regehr at cs dot utah.edu

[Bug middle-end/82177] Alias analysis too aggressive with integer-to-pointer cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82177 --- Comment #2 from Nuno Lopes --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I don't see how this can ever be defined code. > > By definition yi will never be equal to pi unless by accident. Sure, that's ok, but then pi = &x, and so the sto

[Bug middle-end/82177] Alias analysis too aggressive with integer-to-pointer cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82177 --- Comment #3 from Nuno Lopes --- Sorry, I forgot to include the code for b.c: void f(int*x, int*y) {}

[Bug tree-optimization/82282] New: PRE cannot blindly fold integer-to-pointer/pointer-to-integer round-trips

: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt CC: gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr, jeehoon.kang at sf dot snu.ac.kr, juneyoung.lee at sf dot snu.ac.kr

[Bug tree-optimization/82282] PRE cannot blindly fold integer-to-pointer/pointer-to-integer round-trips

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82282 --- Comment #2 from Nuno Lopes --- This is different from PR82177. That bug is in AA, this one is not. See the C source: uintptr_t u = (uintptr_t) (x + 1); uintptr_t v = (uintptr_t) y; // if b1 true, then b2 must be true as well int b1

[Bug tree-optimization/82282] PRE cannot blindly fold integer-to-pointer/pointer-to-integer round-trips

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82282 --- Comment #4 from Nuno Lopes --- There are two major transformations going on: if (u != v) { v = u; } => v = u (with v, u integers) and: glb = (int*)(uinptr_t)foo) => glb = foo Doing both triggers the end-to-end miscompilatio

[Bug middle-end/66021] New: GCC miscompiles Z3

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt Target Milestone: --- GCC 4.92 miscompiles Z3. I've tried Cygwin and Linux, 32 and 64 bits, and all miscompile.

[Bug middle-end/66021] GCC miscompiles Z3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021 --- Comment #1 from Nuno Lopes --- Sorry, a bit more information the problem: On function void reduce_args_tactic::imp::populate_decl2args_proc::operator()(app * n), when compiled with -O0 no call to memory::deallocate(void* p) is made, while wi

[Bug middle-end/66021] GCC miscompiles Z3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021 --- Comment #2 from Nuno Lopes --- Created attachment 35465 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35465&action=edit test case

[Bug middle-end/66021] GCC miscompiles Z3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021 --- Comment #3 from Nuno Lopes --- Created attachment 35467 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35467&action=edit reduced test case

[Bug middle-end/66021] GCC miscompiles Z3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021 Nuno Lopes changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #35467|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/19218] New: internal error with __attribute__ ((alias(xx))

iority: P2 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC host triplet: solaris 9 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19218

[Bug c++/98836] New: tie with spaceship requires operator==

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt Target Milestone: --- The following program doesn't compile with gcc trunk: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/PGqMGn ``` #include #include using namespace std; struct expr { strong_ordering operator<

[Bug libstdc++/98842] New: optional's spaceship operations generates wrong code when operator== is not present

IRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt Target Milestone: --- struct expr { std::strong_ordering operator<=>(const expr &rhs) const; //bool operator==(

[Bug middle-end/106811] GENERIC and GIMPLE IL undefined behavior needs documenting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106811 Nuno Lopes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nunoplopes at sapo dot pt --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/106811] GENERIC and GIMPLE IL undefined behavior needs documenting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106811 --- Comment #3 from Nuno Lopes --- > > I suggest adopting the concept of poison that LLVM has. It allows > > operations to > > have undefined behavior, while still allow them to be moved freely. > > I have some slides that may serve as an intro

[Bug c++/105524] New: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false-positive with switch of enum with more than 2 elements

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: nunoplopes at sapo dot pt Target Milestone: --- The following program gets a false-positive when compiled with `-Wall -O3 -fstrict-enums`: // switch to 0 to make