https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88371
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks to be fixed in GCC 10+.
Indeed... mark this as RESOLVED FIXED perhaps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89567
--- Comment #7 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I am think this can be closed as fixed ...
Well, my example no longer generates two loads. However
> IPA-SRA does handle this if the function is static.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113190
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113188
Bug ID: 113188
Summary: graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c: ‘isl_val_free’ was not
declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 6.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858
--- Comment #15 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
Note that:
* in apt-based distributions such as Debian, the relevant package would be
lib32stdc++-dev , or a similar name with the GCC version, e.g.
lib32stdc++-11-dev .
* Even when this particular issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113181
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
Perhaps I should file a separate bug about collecting 'errata' for finalized
release lines, for when users of newer systems want to build them. That could
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113181
Bug ID: 113181
Summary: When compiling sanitizer_printf.cc, getting error:
multiple definition of ‘enum fsconfig_command’
Product: gcc
Version: 8.5.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113177
Bug ID: 113177
Summary: GCC 8.5.0 build with libstdcxx gets library versions
mixed up
Product: gcc
Version: 8.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112612
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> IV-OPTs selects these IVs and is very much target specific due to cost model.
In this example, it seems that the missed optimization should be useful under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112612
Bug ID: 112612
Summary: [Missed Optimization] Holding on the loop variable
rather than a derived value which can replace it
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95148
--- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > I should not be getting this warning, because when x is unsigned, the
> > comparison is never performed, due to the short-circuit semantics of `and`.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #1)
> I don't think this is a bug of libstdc++.
Well, it's not a bug, it's a feature request. But - I certainly won't bikeshed
about the choice of component.
> Perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845
Bug ID: 105845
Summary: Provide a name mangling facility
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105444
Bug ID: 105444
Summary: Support for disabling all warnings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105029
--- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> You could backport the fix if you want.
I'd like to trouble you for a little more guidance, so that I can apply the fix
to 6.5.0.
Now, I understand the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105029
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105029
Bug ID: 105029
Summary: sanitizer_internal_defs.h:254:72: error: size of array
‘assertion_failed__1135’ is negative
Product: gcc
Version: 6.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
--- Comment #18 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
> > Alternatively, when not following the standard strictly, why should it not
> > be option (4.): Ignore the official restriction on determining (nothrow)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #21 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> No, but "the first non-pure, non-inline virtual function in the class" is
> easy for the user to find.
Well, yes, granted, that would be a huge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #19 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
Ok, have read the wiki page.
> The linker could easily say that, with no changes from GCC.
Is the signature, or name, of the "key function" present in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #16 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
Some comments following my recent dupe...
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I don't know if there is anything there could be done here since the linker
> is what is producing the error.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104918
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I don't think there's anything for GCC to do here.
Why not store information in the compiled object saying which virtual items are
undefined? The vtable was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104918
Bug ID: 104918
Summary: Pass information to let the linker tell the user which
virtual members are missing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104431
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> How did configure GCC?
I used:
./configure --disable-gnat --disable-fortran
(although I'm not sure --disable-fortran does anything).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104431
Bug ID: 104431
Summary: Provide better error message when GCC "multilib" is
missing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103531
--- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> -Wtraditional-conversion catches this:
Well... you're technically right, but:
1. That is a much wider warning. If someone were to turn this on they would get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103531
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Prpose compiler warning |Propose compiler warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103531
Bug ID: 103531
Summary: Prpose compiler warning when ceil functions used on
integral value
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102996
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The foo form is handled by the early uninit pass
Since _none_ of `as` is initialized, one could argue that an early uninit pass
could catch that as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102996
Bug ID: 102996
Summary: No warning on use dereferencing of uninitialized point
in an array
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102936
Bug ID: 102936
Summary: Excessive warnings about passing NULL for an "%s"
specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78963
--- Comment #1 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
... and perhaps I should add that, under certain circumstances, perhaps it
should be possible to just mov four bytes from memory and ignore one of the
bytes. On platforms where access must be aligned that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> See PR 96645 and PR 101227
Ok.
But does that explain why defining an explicit constructor cause g++ to accept
the class as default-constructible?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #5 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> See PR 96645 and PR 101227
Ok, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
Andrew: What you're saying would be plausible if g++ would find the structure
to be incomplete. It does not. The completeness check passes; and it is why
adding the explicit default ctor makes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
Bug ID: 102199
Summary: is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type
with NSDMI
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100184
Bug ID: 100184
Summary: Detect variables which are only "used" in updating
themselves
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707
--- Comment #22 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
Thank you, Jason and others, for your attentiveness to interest in the bug and
prioritizing its fix. (Now if you could just fix all the other bugs I'm
interested in... :-P)
39 matches
Mail list logo
