Similar for sqrt/sqrtl.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/102464
* match.pd: Simplify (_Float16) sqrtf((float) a) to .SQRT(a)
when direct_internal_fn_supported_p, similar for sqrt/sqrtl.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR target/102464
*
Hi Bernhard,
what you're doing seems a useful clean-up, thanks.
One point for discussion:
-match
+static match
gfc_match_label (void)
I have generally understood that the gfc_ prefix is for global variables
and functions only. We do not always adhere to it (also since some
global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph.h.garvin at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a-yee at u dot northwestern.edu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 10/24/2021 8:15 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/18/2021 2:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/18/21 12:52 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/8/2021 9:12 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
The following patch converts the strlen pass from evrp to ranger,
leaving DOM as the last remaining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
The patch was posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582454.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
The proposed patch was tested and just posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582453.html.
Hi,
As PR102767 shows, the commit r12-3482 exposed one ICE in function
rs6000_builtin_vectorization_cost. We claims V1TI supports movmisalign
on rs6000 (See define_expand "movmisalign"), so it return true in
rs6000_builtin_support_vector_misalignment for misalign 8. Later in
the cost querying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102920
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Hi,
As PR102789 shows, when vectorizer does some peelings for alignment
in prologue, function vect_update_inits_of_drs would update the
inits of some drs. But as the failed case, we shouldn't update the
dr for simd_lane_access, it has the fixed-length storage mainly for
the main loop, the update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102868
--- Comment #1 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582452.html
If the second operand of __builtin_shuffle is const vector 0, and with
specific mask, it can be optimized to vspltisw+xxpermdi instead of lxv.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (altivec_expand_vec_perm_const): Add
patterns match and emit for VSX xxpermdi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79330
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
On 10/24/2021 5:40 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Attached is a revised patch for just the access warning pass
to diagnose out-of-bounds stores by atomic functions, with
no attr-fnspec changes.
Is this okay for trunk?
Martin
PS Just to clarify the effect of the original patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102897
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On 10/24/2021 5:43 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The detection of overlapping sprintf calls has a limitation
that leads to both false positives (PR 102919) and negatives
(PR 102238) in corner cases involving members of aggregates.
The false positives result from the overlap logic
On 10/18/2021 2:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/18/21 12:52 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/8/2021 9:12 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
The following patch converts the strlen pass from evrp to ranger,
leaving DOM as the last remaining user.
So is there any reason why we can't
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 1:57 PM Kong, Lingling via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is to support transform in fast-math something like
> _mm512_add_ph(x1, _mm512_fmadd_pch(a, b, _mm512_setzero_ph())) to
> _mm512_fmadd_pch(a, b, x1).
>
> And support transform _mm512_add_ph(x1,
On 10/23/2021 3:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/21/2021 12:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So if we're referring to those temporary const/copy propagations
"escaping" into Ranger, then I would fully expect that to cause
problems. Essentially they're path sensitive const/copy propagations
and may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102514
--- Comment #2 from jim x ---
It seems that they all do not obey [expr.new] p9, which says that
If the expression in a noptr-new-declarator is present, it is implicitly
converted to std::size_t. The expression is erroneous if:
- the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95375
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49111
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102238
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
The detection of overlapping sprintf calls has a limitation
that leads to both false positives (PR 102919) and negatives
(PR 102238) in corner cases involving members of aggregates.
The false positives result from the overlap logic not using
the size of the member used as an argument to %s to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102921
--- Comment #1 from Frank Heckenbach ---
The following program, compiled with "-std=c++20" gives this error message; I
don't even understand what it's trying to tell me:
error: modification of '' is not a constant expression
#include
Attached is a revised patch for just the access warning pass
to diagnose out-of-bounds stores by atomic functions, with
no attr-fnspec changes.
Is this okay for trunk?
Martin
PS Just to clarify the effect of the original patch in case
it wasn't: it didn't enable optimizations of atomic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102921
Bug ID: 102921
Summary: error: modification of '' is not a constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102920
Bug ID: 102920
Summary: [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:30:16 +0200
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Quickly skimming through the frontend headers.
I'm also attaching the other view for the fortran FE after the header
cleanup:
python3 $topsrc/contrib/unused_functions.py gcc/fortran/ \
grep -v "gt_"
for a
Snapshot gcc-12-20211024 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20211024/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
This makes some trans* functions static and deletes declarations of
functions that either do not exist anymore like gfc_get_function_decl
or that are unused like gfc_check_any_c_kind.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* expr.c (is_non_empty_structure_constructor):
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
gfc_match_small_int_expr was unused, delete it.
gfc_match_gcc_unroll should use gfc_match_small_literal_int and then
gfc_match_small_int can be deleted since it will be unused.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* decl.c (gfc_match_old_kind_spec,
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* trans-stmt.h (gfc_trans_deallocate_array): Delete.
---
gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h
index 1a24d9b4cdc..e824caf4d08 100644
---
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* trans-array.c (gfc_trans_scalarized_loop_end): Make static.
* trans-array.h (gfc_trans_scalarized_loop_end,
gfc_conv_tmp_ref, gfc_conv_array_transpose): Delete declaration.
---
gcc/fortran/trans-array.c | 2 +-
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* trans-types.h (gfc_convert_function_code): Delete.
---
gcc/fortran/trans-types.h | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-types.h b/gcc/fortran/trans-types.h
index 1b43503092b..3bc236cad0d 100644
---
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* intrinsic.h (gfc_check_sum, gfc_resolve_atan2d, gfc_resolve_kill,
gfc_resolve_kill_sub): Delete declaration.
---
gcc/fortran/intrinsic.h | 4
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.h
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
gfc_constructor_expr_foreach and gfc_constructor_swap were just stubs.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* constructor.c (gfc_constructor_get_base): Make static.
(gfc_constructor_expr_foreach, (gfc_constructor_swap): Delete.
* constructor.h
Hi!
Quickly skimming through the frontend headers.
There are a couple of declarations for functions that do not have
definitions. And there are a couple of functions that can be static.
Notes i took while at it / TODOs:
- get rid of VTAB_GET_FIELD_GEN and unused extern decls
- The last block of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919
Bug ID: 102919
Summary: spurious -Wrestrict warning for sprintf into the same
member array as argument plus offset
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102918
Bug ID: 102918
Summary: Undefined behaviour in regex header (uininitialized
boolean)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Sandra checked in a large number of testcases for interoperability that were
broken from the outset on all platforms -- I saw them failing on multiple Linux
architectures, not just AIX. The testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
--- Comment #8 from Will Wray ---
The patch above doesn't address the secondary issue,
of ignored and unchecked nested designators:
C b {{.bogus="b"}};
Perhaps reshape_init should be recursed into once more?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
--- Comment #7 from Will Wray ---
The patch below fixes the main issue (I think, checking)
by adding first_initializer_p to the error condition
it errors only where designators are not allowed.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.c b/gcc/cp/decl.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> Previously the test case was unresolved because it referenced alloca without
> a declaration.
>
> char *adata = (char *) alloca (n);
>
> If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #6 from Darrell Wright ---
Right, mostly it can fall under as-if(if it wasn't explicitly disallowed) but
because it's observable it can lead to some interesting behaviour differences
when libstdc++ is compiled with gcc and clang.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 1:36 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Hi H.J.
>
> > On 19 Oct 2021, at 19:01, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>
>
> >> My colleague built GCC, including GCC Go, with your patch:
> >>
> >> "I was able to build
Hi H.J.
> On 19 Oct 2021, at 19:01, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> My colleague built GCC, including GCC Go, with your patch:
>>
>> "I was able to build libgo and test it partially. The results are
>> similar to the current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Darrell Wright from comment #3)
> > Also http://eel.is/c++draft/library#constexpr.functions-1
> >
> > An issue is that it's high level observable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Darrell Wright from comment #3)
> Also http://eel.is/c++draft/library#constexpr.functions-1
>
> An issue is that it's high level observable and not just an optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #3 from Darrell Wright ---
Also http://eel.is/c++draft/library#constexpr.functions-1
An issue is that it's high level observable and not just an optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #2 from Darrell Wright ---
The constexpr value returned is different depending on the compiler. If one
uses clang and gcc this leads to an ODR issue as
void bar( ) {
if constexpr( foo<[]{ return std::sqrt( 4.0 ); }>( ) ) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> this can lead to ODR issues
I don't think it can the C++ standard allows a compiler to have an extended
const expressions IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102685
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 100970 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100970
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102685
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 09:00:52PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear Fortranners, Steve,
>
> I've created PR 102917 for tracking this issue and packaged
> the attached patch.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK mainline?
>
Thanks for picking this up. The patch looks good to me,
but
Hi,
Attached is a new version of the patch, mainly for improving performance
and simplifying the code.
First, regarding the comments:
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 9:00 PM
> To: Di Zhao OS
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Dear Fortranners, Steve,
I've created PR 102917 for tracking this issue and packaged
the attached patch.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK mainline?
Thanks,
Harald
> Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Oktober 2021 um 22:25 Uhr
> Von: "Steve Kargl"
> An: "Harald Anlauf"
> Cc: fort...@gcc.gnu.org
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
Bug ID: 102917
Summary: [PDT] KIND and LEN type parameters shall not be
restricted to default integer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje.gcc at gmail dot com
---
The Linux kernel on hppa is built with -mdisable-fpregs to inhibit the use of
the floating-point
registers. However, I noticed that the 64-bit kernel was using floating-point
registers for hardware
integer multiplication (xmpyu). It turned out this was because various DImode
routines in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 05:28:08AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> I think the following is better:
>
> #ifndef alloca
> #define alloca __builtin_alloca
On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ugwe could put the test back, check for some random large
number, and come up with a more satisfactory test later? ;-)
I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equality (ie,
expect to see this string precisely N times). Though if we
On October 24, 2021 6:57:05 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>On 10/21/2021 9:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Phew, I think we're finally converging on a useful set of
>> threading tests :).
>> >
>> > OK for trunk?
>> Mostly, I just worry
The 'G' constraint only matches a float zero, so it will never match in integer
move patterns.
Tested on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to active branches.
Dave
---
Don't use 'G' constraint in integer move patterns
The 'G' constraint only matches a float zero.
2021-10-24 John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102901
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:57:05 -0600
Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equality (ie,
> expect to see this string precisely N times). Though if we could check
> that # threads realized was > some low water mark, that'd probably be
> better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
Bug ID: 102916
Summary: cmath constexpr can lead to ODR violations/incorrect
results
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102915
Bug ID: 102915
Summary: GCC allows a trailing requires clause on a non
templated lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92435
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:57 AM Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 03:49:09PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In GCC, there are many utility routines for reporting error, warning, or
> > information, for example:
> >
> > warning (0, "weak
On 10/21/2021 9:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> Phew, I think we're finally converging on a useful set of
threading tests :).
>
> OK for trunk?
Mostly, I just worry about losing the key test for the FSM
optimization.
With the provided test, the forward
This patch provides RTL expanders to implement logical shifts and
rotates of 128-bit values (stored in vector integer registers) by
constant bit counts. Previously, GCC would transfer these values
to a pair of scalar registers (TImode) via memory to perform the
operation, then transfer the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98821
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This warning only happens with checking turned on which is the default for
building off the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
Bug ID: 102914
Summary: spurious warnings are emitted on ARM about
non-delegitimized UNSPEC UNSPEC_TLS
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Duplicate of pr102685, fixed by r12-4452?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99183
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This seems to have been fixed between r12-4097 and r12-4638.
Duplicate of pr102745, fixed by r12-4464?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100970
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99183
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incompatible Runtime types |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102912
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102913
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102802
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92701
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This seems to have been fixed between r11-4933 and r11-6947 and back ported to
gcc10.
> Hi Arnaud, do I have permission to take/copy the code examples from
> AdaCore's blog entries? I could not find a "copy"right section or
> disclaimer. I know this is a very minor detail, but still. It would save
> me quite a bit of time :)
Yes, that’s fine.
Arno
On 20.10.21 12:01, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> The wwwdocs repo is documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html#git
>>
>> A change to those pages should be sent to the gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
>> mailing list like any other patch for GCC. You should include
>> "wwwdocs" in the email Subject so people
This patch cures the testsuite failure of bfin/20090914-3.c, which
currently FAILs on bfin-elf with "(test for excess errors)" due to:
20090914-3.c:3:1: warning: return type defaults to 'int' [-Wimplicit-int]
which is obviously not what this code was intended to test. Fixed by
turning the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102913
Bug ID: 102913
Summary: variant_construct_single should not remove the const
qualifier of Up
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
``
but its compilation in GCC results in a long error:
```
In file included from :2:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20211024/include/c++/12.0.0/variant: In
instantiation of 'constexpr std::__detail::__variant::_Variadic_union<_First,
_Rest ...>::_Variadic_union(std::in_place_index_t<_Np>, _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 __sanitizer::CheckFailed (
file=0xf7b17af4
"/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp",
line=46,
cond=0xf7b17ac0 "((allocated_for_dlsym)) <
Jonathan pointed this out to me while remove a link from the
installation documentation to the no longer existing old.html
page.
At first I was puzzled, but a bit of debugging made me realize
where the (now) empty old.html page still was coming from.
Fixed thusly, and I'll add some code to
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
