https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113634
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
realloc is wrong too ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113634
Bug ID: 113634
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Wfree-nonheap-object-7.c, incorrect
declaration for calloc()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113633
Bug ID: 113633
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/bf-ms-attrib.c execution test, wrong size
for ms_struct
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113632
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Range info for a^CST could |Range info for a^CSTP2-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113632
Bug ID: 113632
Summary: Range info for a^CST could be improved
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113607
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
[apinski@xeond2 upstream-full-cross]$ ./install/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc
-static t.c -O3 -fno-vect-cost-model -march=armv9-a+sve
[apinski@xeond2 upstream-full-cross]$ ./install-qemu/bin/qemu-aarch64 a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113526
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 6:24 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 6:07 PM Thomas Voss via Gcc-bugs
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Earlier today I decided to clone the GCC repo and build the latest code
> > just to play around with some new C23 features. One thing I attempted
>
Hello dear people,
I want to try building a GCC compiler backend for the STM8
micro-controller target in order to make this wonderful architecture
more accessible.
But as I'm fairly new in this area of building compiler backends for
GCC, I would need a bit of guidance / read material to get
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 6:07 PM Thomas Voss via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Earlier today I decided to clone the GCC repo and build the latest code
> just to play around with some new C23 features. One thing I attempted
> was the following:
>
> typedef _BitInt(128) underlying;
> enum
Hi all,
Earlier today I decided to clone the GCC repo and build the latest code
just to play around with some new C23 features. One thing I attempted
was the following:
typedef _BitInt(128) underlying;
enum my_enum : underlying {
FOO = (underlying)1 << 100;
BAR =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113630
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note LLVM produces decent code here by only using one load:
```
xor eax, eax
testesi, esi
seteal
mov eax, dword ptr [rdi + 4*rax]
```
Maybe GCC could do the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
See Also|
Hi David - and thanks for posting an outline for libdiagnostics at
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/libdiagnostics
Currently this shows both libdiagnosts and libdiagnostics-sarif-dump
integrated into GCC. Is this the plan or would those be available as a
top-level project (the program as an example
Snapshot gcc-13-20240127 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20240127/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52029ef151cc9b1c90fa620079fc17f3960c467c
commit r13-8257-g52029ef151cc9b1c90fa620079fc17f3960c467c
Author: Lewis Hyatt
I don't provide a new test because this error only happens when there
are no include paths at all, and I haven't worked out a way to get this
to happen within DejaGNU (as it adds a number of `-B` and `-I` flags).
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Burgess from comment #21)
> Setting to DW_CFA_undefined is the right thing to do. DWARF says:
>
> The DW_CFA_undefined instruction takes a single unsigned LEB128 operand
> that
When assembler directives for DWARF frame unwind is enabled, generate
the .cfi_undefined directive for unsaved callee-saved registers which
have been used in the function.
gcc/
PR target/38534
* config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_post_cfi_startproc): New.
The purpose of this test is to make sure that constant propagation is
achieved with the proper optimization level, so a BPF call instruction
to a kernel helper is generated. This patch updates the patch so it
also covers kernel helpers defined with constant static pointers.
The motivation for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110273
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #13)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jens-Hanno Schwalm from comment #10)
> > > Hi, i think we found a very-similar issue in darktable code, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113631
Bug ID: 113631
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr7356.c, fix still fails with #pragma
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, testsuite-fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113630
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect pre us doing the right thing. It is phi-opt code that hoists is doing
the wrong thing for non strict aliasing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113630
Bug ID: 113630
Summary: -fno-strict-aliasing introduces out-of-bounds memory
access
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113357
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
git bisect identified the following as the start of this error:
# new: [04c9cf5c786b94fbe3f6f21f06cae73a7575ff7a] Implement new RTL
optimizations pass: fold-mem-offsets
Note the error still reproduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113629
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
more reduced:
struct Base {
operator int(this auto&&) {
return 42;
}
};
int main() {
Base b;
// return static_cast(Base{}); // ok
return static_cast(b); // error
}
https://godbolt.org/z/qGrbf4rj7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks, I'll add
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/bitint-55.c.jj 2024-01-27 18:08:50.291929969
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/bitint-55.c2024-01-27 18:07:59.266636007
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8e584a81817713f98f16b2c81426905748237e3
commit r12-10118-ge8e584a81817713f98f16b2c81426905748237e3
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Dear all,
commit r11-1235 for pr95331 addressed array bounds issues with
unlimited polymorphic array dummies, but caused regressions for
CLASS array dummies that lead to either wrong code with bounds-checking,
or an ICE. The solution is simple: add a check whether the dummy
is unlimited
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113629
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
test:
https://godbolt.org/z/jdz3ejohv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113629
Bug ID: 113629
Summary: 'deducing this' does not work with conversion
operators
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104908
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce61de1b8a1bb3a22118e900376f380768f2ba59
commit r14-8471-gce61de1b8a1bb3a22118e900376f380768f2ba59
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113628
--- Comment #2 from Jiajing_Zheng ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #1)
> These two files are not equivalent. The equivalent would be
> long TVH = (g_106 / (g_51 ? g_51 : 16653417461));
> because that is the type that subexpression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103994
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-27
Debug output ICEs when we do not set TYPE_STUB_DECL, fix this.
Fix ICE with -g and -std=c23 when forming composite types [PR113438]
Set TYPE_STUB_DECL to an artificial decl when creating a new structure
as a composite type.
PR c/113438
gcc/c/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103994
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
We accept the comment #1 testcase after r14-6979, but still ICE on the original
testcase:
cfg.cc:5:9: internal compiler error: in insert, at cp/module.cc:4924
0x77357d trees_out::insert(tree_node*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113628
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 57243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57243=edit
A patch to generate .cfi_undefined for unsaved callee-saved registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113443
--- Comment #4 from Jason Liam ---
Clang has now fixed the issue https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/78449
So now only gcc rejects the valid program.
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> Hi,
> The test passes -mlittle-endian option but doesn't have target check
> for aarch64_little_endian and thus fails to compile on
> aarch64_be-linux-gnu. The patch adds the missing aarch64_little_endian
> target check, which makes it unsupported on the target.
> OK
This was another PR caused by the way that
vect_determine_precisions_from_range handle shifts. We tried to
narrow 32768 >> x to a 16-bit shift based on range information for
the inputs and outputs, with vect_recog_over_widening_pattern
(after PR110828) adjusting the shift amount. But this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113617
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/list/?series=30277
For function symbol reference in readonly data section, instead of putting
it in .data.rel.ro or .rodata.cst section, call function_rodata_section to
get the read-only or relocated read-only data section associated with the
function DECL so that the COMDAT section will be used for a COMDAT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Burgess ---
Setting to DW_CFA_undefined is the right thing to do. DWARF says:
The DW_CFA_undefined instruction takes a single unsigned LEB128 operand
that represents a register number. The required action is to
Changes in v2:
1. Lookup noreturn attribute first.
2. Use __attribute__((noreturn, optimize("-Og"))) in pr38534-6.c.
Save callee-saved registers in noreturn functions for -O0/-Og so that
debugger can restore callee-saved registers in caller's frame.
gcc/
PR target/38534
*
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 6:09 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 05:52:34AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > @@ -3391,7 +3392,9 @@ ix86_set_func_type (tree fndecl)
> > function is marked as noreturn in the IR output, which leads the
> > incompatible attribute error in LTO1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113628
Bug ID: 113628
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined failed to check a signed integer
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 05:52:34AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> @@ -3391,7 +3392,9 @@ ix86_set_func_type (tree fndecl)
> function is marked as noreturn in the IR output, which leads the
> incompatible attribute error in LTO1. */
>bool has_no_callee_saved_registers
> -=
在 2024/1/27 下午7:11, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 18:02 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 11:15 +0800, chenglulu wrote:
在 2024/1/26 下午6:57, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 16:59 +0800, chenglulu wrote:
在 2024/1/26 下午4:49, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 15:37
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57239|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57241=edit
testcase4 (not beautified)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
--- Comment #8 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57240=edit
testcase3 (not beautified)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57239=edit
testcase2 (not beautified)
Save callee-saved registers in noreturn functions for -O0/-Og so that
debugger can restore callee-saved registers in caller's frame.
gcc/
PR target/38534
* config/i386/i386-options.cc (ix86_set_func_type): Save
callee-saved registers in noreturn functions for -O0/-Og.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aburgess at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> > E.g. shouldn't it at least be disabled for -O0 and -Og and shouldn't we
>
> We can disable this for -O0 and -Og.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> E.g. shouldn't it at least be disabled for -O0 and -Og and shouldn't we
We can disable this for -O0 and -Og.
> somehow indicate in DWARF unwind info that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. shouldn't it at least be disabled for -O0 and -Og and shouldn't we somehow
indicate in DWARF unwind info that the callee saved registers weren't saved and
were clobbered? Even if backtrace itself
Hi,
The test passes -mlittle-endian option but doesn't have target check
for aarch64_little_endian and thus fails to compile on
aarch64_be-linux-gnu. The patch adds the missing aarch64_little_endian
target check, which makes it unsupported on the target.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105608
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a525d23aad8bf2f4db37f384c331af1abf7f103
commit r11-11213-g7a525d23aad8bf2f4db37f384c331af1abf7f103
Author: Lewis Hyatt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7cc9adc62cee0aa91ce834b3dd6296ce38f1d79d
commit r14-8470-g7cc9adc62cee0aa91ce834b3dd6296ce38f1d79d
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Jan 23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113312
--- Comment #27 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a96549dce7636edfc693bf758ef27fcd8adc6161
commit r14-8469-ga96549dce7636edfc693bf758ef27fcd8adc6161
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Jan 23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103503
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a96549dce7636edfc693bf758ef27fcd8adc6161
commit r14-8469-ga96549dce7636edfc693bf758ef27fcd8adc6161
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Jan 23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113568
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113622
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess for an rvalue (if even that crashes) we want to expand it to some
permutation or whole vector shift which moves the indexed elements first and
then extract it, for lvalue we need to insert it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113614
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a12b0e9360e88fceb0414bfb34c8c1ad87c5ac90
commit r14-8468-ga12b0e9360e88fceb0414bfb34c8c1ad87c5ac90
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113568
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f5ac4696351c352980f8cd1b063df89894549c2
commit r14-8467-g3f5ac4696351c352980f8cd1b063df89894549c2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
> Am 27.01.2024 um 09:16 schrieb Jakub Jelinek :
>
> Hi!
>
> We generally allow merging mergeable stmts with some final cast (but not
> further casts or mergeable operations after the cast). As some casts
> are handled conditionally, if (idx < cst) handle_operand (idx); else if
> idx ==
> Am 27.01.2024 um 09:15 schrieb Jakub Jelinek :
>
> Hi!
>
> While the SSA coalescing performed by lower bitint prints some information
> if -fdump-tree-bitintlower-details, it is really hard to read and doesn't
> contain the most important information which one looks for when debugging
>
> Am 27.01.2024 um 09:18 schrieb Jakub Jelinek :
>
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is miscompiled, because some narrower value
> is sign-extended to wider unsigned _BitInt used as division operand.
> handle_operand_addr for that case returns the narrower value and
> precision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112506
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-11-13 00:00:00 |2024-1-27
--- Comment #5 from Iain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #14 from Roger Sayle ---
My apologies for not keeping folks updated on my thinking. Following Oleg's
feedback, I've decided to slim down my proposed fix to the bare minimum, and
postpone the other rtx_costs improvements until GCC 15
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:36 PM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:00 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> >
> > 1. Rebase against commit 02e68389494
> > 2. Don't add call_no_callee_saved_registers to machine_function since
> > all callee-saved registers are properly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 57221 [details]
> > gcc14-pr113604.patch
> >
> > Untested fix. I've tried to explain what's
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 18:02 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 11:15 +0800, chenglulu wrote:
> >
> > 在 2024/1/26 下午6:57, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
> > > On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 16:59 +0800, chenglulu wrote:
> > > > 在 2024/1/26 下午4:49, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
> > > > > On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 15:37 +0800, Lulu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 113292, which changed state.
Bug 113292 Summary: [modules] internal error when compiling header to module
containing static thread_local variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113292
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113292
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112588
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 112588, which changed state.
Bug 112588 Summary: [modules] ICE in make_decl_rtl when returning str literal
when string header imported in module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112588
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109679
--- Comment #6 from Nathaniel Shead ---
*** Bug 113129 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 113129, which changed state.
Bug 113129 Summary: "using declaration" not detected as "exported" in exported
namespace (C++ modules)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113129
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113129
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 57221 [details]
> gcc14-pr113604.patch
>
> Untested fix. I've tried to explain what's going on in the large comment.
I can confirm this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102607
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 102607, which changed state.
Bug 102607 Summary: [modules] option -g results in undefined reference to
`typeinfo for type`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102607
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112820
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 112820, which changed state.
Bug 112820 Summary: vtable not emitted correctly from module when compiling
with -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112820
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 110808, which changed state.
Bug 110808 Summary: [modules] Internal Compiler Error in check_mergeable_decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110808
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110808
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 109679, which changed state.
Bug 109679 Summary: export using for functions does not work as specified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109679
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109679
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 113405, which changed state.
Bug 113405 Summary: Can't access member type alias of concept-constrained class
template specialization in global module fragment via alias template in
different module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113405
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 112899, which changed state.
Bug 112899 Summary: odr-using constexpr static data member of class exported
from module results in linker error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112899
What
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
