Hello,
I would like to add support for new attribute: nonzero.
Nonzero attribute works the same way as nonnull but instead of checking for
NULL, it checks for integer or enum with value 0.
Nonzero attribute would issue warnings with new compiler flag
-Wnonzero and -Wnonzero-compare.
Nonzero
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 04:34:48PM +, Miika via Gcc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to add support for new attribute: nonzero.
> Nonzero attribute works the same way as nonnull but instead of checking for
> NULL, it checks for integer or enum with value 0.
NULL/nullptr is very special
Snapshot gcc-11-20220603 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220603/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hey!
We are in the process of implementing MTE (Memory Tagging Extension)
stack tagging in LLVM. To support stack tagging in combination with
exceptions, we need to make sure that the unwinder will untag stack
frames, to avoid leaving behind stale tags. As such, we need some way
to communicate to
Thank you for catching this one. I'll provide a fix.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 16:56, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 1:17 PM Philipp Tomsich
> wrote:
> >
> > The Zbb support has introduced ctz and clz to the backend, but some
> > transformations in GCC need to know what the value of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105837
Bug ID: 105837
Summary: New test c-c++-common/diagnostic-format-sarif-file-4.c
in r13-967-g6cf276ddf22066 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:16:26AM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On 6/3/22 11:04, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > @@ -4319,15 +4319,32 @@ maybe_dummy_object (tree type, tree* binfop)
> > > > > if (binfop)
> > > > >*binfop =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100374
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43c013df02fdb07f9b7a5e7e6669e6d69769d451
commit r13-981-g43c013df02fdb07f9b7a5e7e6669e6d69769d451
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 03:37:56PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Simple patch. Testcases based on the C/C++ commit.
> For allocate, I found an unrelated bug which prevented me from adding
> the associated testcase: https://gcc.gnu.org/PR105836
>
> Tested on x86-64 (w/o offloading).
> OK for
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 1:17 PM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
>
> The Zbb support has introduced ctz and clz to the backend, but some
> transformations in GCC need to know what the value of c[lt]z at zero
> is. This affects how the optab is generated and may suppress use of
> CLZ/CTZ in tree passes.
>
>
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:16:26AM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 6/3/22 11:04, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > @@ -4319,15 +4319,32 @@ maybe_dummy_object (tree type, tree* binfop)
> > > > if (binfop)
> > > >*binfop = binfo;
> > > >- if (current_class_ref
> > > > -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105835
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105834
Bug ID: 105834
Summary: Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 (trunk vs.
12.1.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105835
Bug ID: 105835
Summary: Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O1 (trunk vs.
12.1.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105797
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |[11/12 Regression] Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105836
Bug ID: 105836
Summary: [OpenMP] segfault when assigning after firstprivate +
allocate
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp,
Simple patch. Testcases based on the C/C++ commit.
For allocate, I found an unrelated bug which prevented me from adding
the associated testcase: https://gcc.gnu.org/PR105836
Tested on x86-64 (w/o offloading).
OK for mainline?
Tobias
-
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH;
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 6/2/22 15:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/27/22 09:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 26 May 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 26 May 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105637
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44a5bd6d933d86ed988fc4695aa00f122cf83eb4
commit r13-984-g44a5bd6d933d86ed988fc4695aa00f122cf83eb4
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105833
Bug ID: 105833
Summary: Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 (trunk vs.
12.1.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 6/3/22 10:46, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/2/22 15:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 5/27/22 09:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > > On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105637
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] Wrong|[12 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105797
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df4f95dbd4764ffc1e8270e5b3c0fd71b6724562
commit r13-980-gdf4f95dbd4764ffc1e8270e5b3c0fd71b6724562
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
On 6/3/22 10:46, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/2/22 15:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/27/22 09:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On
On 6/3/22 11:04, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/3/22 10:46, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/2/22 15:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/27/22 09:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105637
--- Comment #5 from Ted Lyngmo ---
Excellent and thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105637
--- Comment #6 from Rob Lefebvre ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Bug ID: 105838
Summary: g++ 12.1.0 runs out of memory or time when building
const std::vector of std::strings
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105825
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be2861fe8c527a5952257462ceca899bb43b1452
commit r13-972-gbe2861fe8c527a5952257462ceca899bb43b1452
Author: Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 1, 2022, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>> This patch introduces -multiflags, short for multilib TFLAGS, as an
>> option that does nothing by default, but that can be added to TFLAGS
>> and mapped to useful options by driver
It's cleaner to have the unsupported_range fully fleshed out, instead
of trapping on every operation. It can also serve as the basis for
the default vrange methods that frange and prange will inherit.
This patch implements most methods, including union and intersect, to
handle an UNDEFINED and a
The traits struct is no longer needed.
Tested on x86-64 Linux.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* value-range.h (struct vrange_traits): Remove.
(is_a): Rewrite without vrange_traits.
(as_a): Same.
---
gcc/value-range.h | 28 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105830
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hiraditya at msn dot com
--- Comment
On Jun 2, 2022, Jan Beulich via Gcc-patches wrote:
> * Makefile.in (ORIGINAL_OBJCOPY_FOR_TARGET): New.
> * configure.ac: Check for objcopy, producing
> ORIGINAL_OBJCOPY_FOR_TARGET.
> * configure: Update accordingly.
> * exec-tool.in (ORIGINAL_OBJCOPY_FOR_TARGET):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105665
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be2861fe8c527a5952257462ceca899bb43b1452
commit r13-972-gbe2861fe8c527a5952257462ceca899bb43b1452
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date:
[I have conservatively assumed that both the loop-ch and loop-unswitch
passes, which also use the ranger, only support integers and pointers.
If the goal is to handle other types as well, irange::supports_p()
should be Value_Range::supports_type_p(), and any uses of
int_range_max should be
On Jun 2, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>> + if (is_a (USE_STMT (use_p)))
> I think you also want to skip debug stmts here?
Indeed, thanks!
(live by the sword, die by the sword ;-)
>> + if (dump_file)
> && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS) please
ack
>> + if (dump_file)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105830
Bug ID: 105830
Summary: call to memcpy when -nostdlib -nodefaultlibs flags
provided
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Two non-portable shell constructs have been long present in libcody's
build rule for revision.stamp: $() instead of ``, and += to append to
a shell variable. The former seems to work even when bash is
operating as /bin/sh, but += doesn't, and it ends up trying to run
revision+=M as a command
This fixes a couples places that were using int_range_max, but needed
a generic temporary. Found while merging the frange work.
Also, copying between range temporaries is actually useful :).
Tested on x86-64 Linux.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gimple-range-cache.cc (ranger_cache::range_from_dom):
On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 01:46:25PM +, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Starting x86_64-linux and i686-linux bootstrap/regtest, ok for trunk if
> > it passes them?
>
> OK.
Testing found one special case that wasn't handled correctly in the patch,
when @1 is -1, INT_MIN / -1 during the lo computation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Bug ID: 105832
Summary: Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs.
12.1.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30314
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1982fe2692b6c3b7f969ffc4edac59f9d4359e91
commit r13-979-g1982fe2692b6c3b7f969ffc4edac59f9d4359e91
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:49 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> Technically, PR target/91681 has already been resolved; we now recognize the
> highpart multiplication at the tree-level, we no longer use the stack, and
> we currently generate the same number of instructions as LLVM. However, it
> is
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 5:11 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> The length attribute ought to be "the (bounding maximum) length of an
> instruction" according to the comment next to its definition. A register
> operand encoded using the ModR/M.rm field will additionally use VEX.B
> for encoding the highest
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:17 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> My PR105778 patch apparently broke the following testcase.
> If the mask has the top relevant bit clear (i.e. we know we are shifting
> by 0 to wordsize bits - 1) but doesn't have all the bits below it set,
> we emit andsi3 before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105473
--- Comment #21 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
I have only one problem here, and it's with the f2018 standard seeming
to contradict itself in two places that both apply to this program.
12.11.1 begins "The set of input/output error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105777
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1982fe2692b6c3b7f969ffc4edac59f9d4359e91
commit r13-979-g1982fe2692b6c3b7f969ffc4edac59f9d4359e91
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105825
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r13-927-gdcfdd2851b297e0005a8490b7f867ca45d1ad340
Hi!
My PR105778 patch apparently broke the following testcase.
If the mask has the top relevant bit clear (i.e. we know we are shifting
by 0 to wordsize bits - 1) but doesn't have all the bits below it set,
we emit andsi3 before the shift sequence. When the pattern had :SI
for that operand, that
Technically, PR target/91681 has already been resolved; we now recognize the
highpart multiplication at the tree-level, we no longer use the stack, and
we currently generate the same number of instructions as LLVM. However, it
is still possible to do better, the current x86_64 code to generate a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
Bug ID: 105831
Summary: Nonportable syntax in "test" and "[" commands.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87656
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Note, what is most important with this are configure scripts, if we start
> warning on something still widely used in configure snippets, we'll get
>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:08 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:49 AM Roger Sayle
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Technically, PR target/91681 has already been resolved; we now recognize the
> > highpart multiplication at the tree-level, we no longer use the stack, and
> > we currently
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:23:36PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I think it is better to leave the operation in its natural mode and
> leave the peephole pass to do its magic, depending on the target.
So like this?
2022-06-03 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/105825
* config/i386/i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105792
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105292
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sumbera at volny dot cz
--- Comment
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:38 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:23:36PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > I think it is better to leave the operation in its natural mode and
> > leave the peephole pass to do its magic, depending on the target.
>
> So like this?
You can use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105839
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase, so that it is already valid C++17:
template
void
foo (const T )
{
[&] (auto&& y)
{
#pragma omp parallel for
for (auto&& [v1, v2] : x)
;
} ([]{});
}
void
bar ()
{
Here, when we see the second declaration of f we match it with the first
one, copy over DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO, and then try to use it when parsing the
definition, leading to confusion.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
PR c++/105761
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* decl.cc
On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 03:06:52PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > Ping patch posted on May 13th:
>
> Are you not going to apply any of Will's suggestions? They looked solid
> to me.
Sure, I will clean up the comments.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 6/1/22 14:20, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > r12-7564-gec0f53a3a542e7 made us instantiate non-constant non-dependent
> > > decltype operands by relaxing instantiate_non_dependent_expr to check
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105761
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2843bfa21073dd1ac222540e189e8bcf40afc2c0
commit r12-8456-g2843bfa21073dd1ac222540e189e8bcf40afc2c0
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105840
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, that sounds great to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105840
Bug ID: 105840
Summary: confusing diagnostic when naming the wrong class in a
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105756
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ecb6b906f215ec56df1a555139abe9ad95414fb
commit r13-986-g0ecb6b906f215ec56df1a555139abe9ad95414fb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
Hi Richard,
Here's a revised version of my patch incorporating both your suggestions.
The algorithm now uses two worklist vectors, and pointers to them,
alternating between them on each iteration, which allows the code to
handle an arbitrary number of passes without the previous code duplication.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105761
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:284ae8b46f5eef74c0b660a87a7169497f559e73
commit r13-985-g284ae8b46f5eef74c0b660a87a7169497f559e73
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105840
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
I think something to this effect maybe?
:9:7: error: attempting to declare constructor for unrelated class 'A';
did you mean to use 'B'?
9 | A(int i);
| ^~
| B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841
Bug ID: 105841
Summary: Change in behavior of CTAD for alias templates
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 01:44:30PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 03:06:52PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > Ping patch posted on May 13th:
> >
> > Are you not going to apply any of Will's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105839
Bug ID: 105839
Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst_omp_for_iterator,
at cp/pt.cc:18122 (instantiate_pending_templates ->
instantiate_decl -> tsubst_lambda_expr)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105840
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
On 6/3/22 14:13, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/1/22 14:20, Patrick Palka wrote:
r12-7564-gec0f53a3a542e7 made us instantiate non-constant non-dependent
decltype operands by relaxing instantiate_non_dependent_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105761
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c27cbeb985f7b6e1759399971b4fe2773e91ca71
commit r11-10047-gc27cbeb985f7b6e1759399971b4fe2773e91ca71
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.3.1, 12.1.1, 13.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105842
Bug ID: 105842
Summary: rejects-valid: static member function overload set
constrained by concepts for class template results in
ambiguous call
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105473
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
12.11.2 (6) says "if the statement is a READ statement or the error
condition occurs in a wait operation for a transfer initiated by a READ
statement, all input items or namelist group objects in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105843
Bug ID: 105843
Summary: pt_BR: wrong translation for "integer constant is so
large that it is unsigned"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105843
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The translation project is the upstream for the translations really.
https://translationproject.org/team/index.html has the list of emails for the
translation team and you should send an email to them.
gccpatches https://www.google.com/search?q=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
GregoryJohnCasamento
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105844
Bug ID: 105844
Summary: std::lcm(5, 4) is UB but accepted in a
constexpr due to cast to unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105844
Goswin von Brederlow changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||goswin-v-b at web dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105473
--- Comment #23 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
Given what "undefined" means in Fortran, I see no bug now.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 21:04:22 +
> From: jvdelisle at gcc dot
cp_parser_attributes_opt doesn't accept GNU attributes followed by
[[]] attributes and vice versa; only a sequence of attributes of the
same kind. That causes grief for code like:
struct __attribute__ ((may_alias)) alignas (2) struct S { };
or
#define EXPORT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105844
--- Comment #2 from Goswin von Brederlow ---
I know the patch doesn't work yet, the static_asserts aren't constexpr. But
hopefully it gives someone enough of an idea to fix it.
On 6/3/22 20:05, Marek Polacek wrote:
cp_parser_attributes_opt doesn't accept GNU attributes followed by
[[]] attributes and vice versa; only a sequence of attributes of the
same kind. That causes grief for code like:
struct __attribute__ ((may_alias)) alignas (2) struct S { };
or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
92 matches
Mail list logo
