https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103401
Bug ID: 103401
Summary: gcc accepts decltype(auto(0)) as the parameter of the
function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85428
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103376
--- Comment #7 from Zhendong Su ---
A couple of additional tests for the same issue:
(1) at -Os and above
[622] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[623] % gcctk -Os small.c; ./a.out
Aborted
[624] % cat small.c
long a = 2653121401;
unsigned char b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #13)
> >
> > So for short live range reg, we may lose opportunity to allocate best
> > regclass, maybe add peephole2 to handle those cases instead of tune RA.
> No,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34723
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note GCC 10+ autovectorizes the loop to (which is better than clang, which
produces a lot of shuffles):
movqxmm0, QWORD PTR table[rip]
pxorxmm1, xmm1
movdqa xmm2, xmm0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86955
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d71d019f63ed5d3fdb34579023bafa4dcf323f2c
commit r12-5488-gd71d019f63ed5d3fdb34579023bafa4dcf323f2c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103383
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Rich Kujoth from comment #3)
> Haha nice, I guess I should have read a little further. Thanks!
>
> What does the "length" mean?
length means the size of the instructions in bytes that would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103383
--- Comment #3 from Rich Kujoth ---
Haha nice, I guess I should have read a little further. Thanks!
What does the "length" mean?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103383
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||microblaze
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103376
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Another testcase (from PR 103399) which shows the issue:
int t1 = -2;
int e(int) __attribute__((noipa));
int e(int f) {
int t = 0;
for (int d = 0; d < f; d ++) {
for (int c = 0; c < ((f ? t1 : 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103035
Bug 103035 depends on bug 103399, which changed state.
Bug 103399 Summary: [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103399
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vsevolod.livinskij at frtk dot
ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103399
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Before bswap, we have:
iftmp.0_11 = t1;
t1.1_1 = t1;
_2 = t1.1_1 ^ iftmp.0_11;
But after we get:
load_dst_8 = MEM[(int *)];
_2 = (int) load_dst_8;
Which is wrong as _2 should have been 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103398
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> No. The whole reason why there is an option is because it is optional.
A fair amount of future-new-defaults start off as optional and eventually
become it. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103398
--- Comment #2 from Fangrui Song ---
I want to switch the default because:
* It seems to me that every Linux distro uses --enable-default-pie GCC. I use
"many", but it is likely "most" at this point (2021).
* When a user builds GCC on Linux,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #21 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> Should we open a new bug for missed optimization?
Missed optimization is fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7df89377a7ae3906255e38a79be8e5d962c3a0df
commit r12-5486-g7df89377a7ae3906255e38a79be8e5d962c3a0df
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103400
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> And --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=bitmap is completely broken, see PR 103381.
Repeating PR 103381 comment 4:
Every test fails with:
/usr/bin/ld:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103381
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103381
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a641becb2c8fdca4e9c113b2dcf6cc5e8a6c04a
commit r9-9840-g4a641becb2c8fdca4e9c113b2dcf6cc5e8a6c04a
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103381
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a7a68872b425afb015d499c879e709fdd32616b
commit r10-10290-g0a7a68872b425afb015d499c879e709fdd32616b
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103400
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> Similarly, when built with --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt lots of tests
> fail, because the __gnu_cxx::__common_pool<__gnu_cxx::__pool,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103394
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
I've experimented some more and have reduced things further to this example.
I'm not positive it captures everything that is going wrong in the original.
program example
type :: foo
end type
type :: bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103400
Bug ID: 103400
Summary: src/c++98/*_allocator.cc symbols not exported
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: link-failure
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103381
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Every test fails with:
/usr/bin/ld: .../libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so: undefined reference to
`__gnu_cxx::bitmap_allocator::_S_last_request'
/usr/bin/ld: .../libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103388
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103375
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101985
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101985
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by William Schmidt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4326a1cd664e56167ed23de8beecfe250f466fcb
commit r9-9839-g4326a1cd664e56167ed23de8beecfe250f466fcb
Author: Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 88232, which changed state.
Bug 88232 Summary: Please implement -Winfinite-recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88232
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88232
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103360
Bug 103360 depends on bug 96507, which changed state.
Bug 96507 Summary: missing -Waddress for member references
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96507
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96507
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101985
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by William Schmidt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:049aa656393299d2ff23f0292c6f49e5057e2909
commit r10-10289-g049aa656393299d2ff23f0292c6f49e5057e2909
Author: Bill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96507
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2dd56aed3e4e1938a9020ab2fe6a410e1a1c2eb3
commit r12-5484-g2dd56aed3e4e1938a9020ab2fe6a410e1a1c2eb3
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88232
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30ba058f77eedfaf7a0582f5d42aff949710bce4
commit r12-5483-g30ba058f77eedfaf7a0582f5d42aff949710bce4
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
; j < 8; ++j)
b[i][k][j] = -1311387439415292401LL;
e(8, b);
printf("%u\n", a);
if (a != 42)
__builtin_abort();
}
Error:
>$ g++ -O1 driver.cpp && ./a.out
42
>$ g++ -O2 driver.cpp && ./a.out
0
gcc version 12.0.0 20211123 (721d8b9e26bf8205c1f2125c2626919a408cdbe4) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103395
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Nice reproducer!
Here's the original thread where the bug was reported when compiling qemu on
Fedora Rawhide for armv7:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103398
Bug ID: 103398
Summary: configure: Enable --enable-default-pie by default for
Linux
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c59ec55c3459fba619e05ee7f59480b71e85ffd7
commit r12-5482-gc59ec55c3459fba619e05ee7f59480b71e85ffd7
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79074
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.2.0, 12.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101985
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by William Schmidt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fb9bf6667db0c9bac4145fcc02280b8d3133a27
commit r11-9272-g8fb9bf6667db0c9bac4145fcc02280b8d3133a27
Author: Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103396
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[GCN][BUILD] ICE RTL check: |[12 Regression][GCN][BUILD]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103396
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 51864
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51864=edit
Reduced testcase – compile with -O2 -march=gfx900 / gfx906 / gfx908
Note: No ICE with -match=fiji
ICE at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103367
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The 'real' index 'b' is a red herring. Replacing it e.g. by an undefined 'm'
generates the same backtrace.
Also replacing the bad code line by
integer, parameter :: y(1,2) = (x(m)%a) !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103187
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've backported that fix for GCC 11.3 but I want to keep this open to get to
the bottom of the underlying bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa4a8f3faaa1172b103c6a148a7830e7e6375cc3
commit r11-9271-gfa4a8f3faaa1172b103c6a148a7830e7e6375cc3
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103240
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec6ba81a038be488cec5e3bdc4f30b7876d9c5ea
commit r11-9270-gec6ba81a038be488cec5e3bdc4f30b7876d9c5ea
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103381
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a7308bac8c9a90c153a6f25f0c9bf7e2a0f2e73
commit r11-9269-g9a7308bac8c9a90c153a6f25f0c9bf7e2a0f2e73
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101571
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:667339efd8ee10079aac9684c5d1c9c9b28d9da6
commit r11-9268-g667339efd8ee10079aac9684c5d1c9c9b28d9da6
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103396
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is the cross compiler built with this GCC that includes this patch or this
patch just exposing a bug in the backend?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103397
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103397
Bug ID: 103397
Summary: [12 Regression] GCN target '-march=gfx900' libgfortran
build broken
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16e95050f71e9fa408e9bd8ccd415b0e7adc66e5
commit r12-5480-g16e95050f71e9fa408e9bd8ccd415b0e7adc66e5
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103396
Bug ID: 103396
Summary: [GCN][BUILD] ICE RTL check: access of elt 4 of vector
with last elt 3 in move_callee_saved_registers, at
config/gcn/gcn.c:2821
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103221
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103379
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
--- Comment #56 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b1d3d8d732bea86c7b2aba46c2a437461020824
commit r12-5479-g4b1d3d8d732bea86c7b2aba46c2a437461020824
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93453
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #6)
> Yes, I found that the nonzero_bits doesn't return exact value in other
> pass.
It returns a different value. Neither is "exact".
The version used by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103395
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103395
Bug ID: 103395
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE on qemu in arm
create_fix_barrier
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103388
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103394
Bug ID: 103394
Summary: Bad object code for structure constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103306
--- Comment #19 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Fixed on trunk.
: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211123 (experimental) (GCC)
Branch: trunk, w/ a latest commit of 721d8b9e26bf8205c1f2125c2626919a408cdbe4
===
=TEST CODE=
===
# cat test.cpp
struct TestData {
float arr[8];
};
void cpy( TestData& s1, TestData& s2 ) {
for(int i=0; i<8; ++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103306
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3363022ed810a2797c47867890547c8f73163257
commit r12-5477-g3363022ed810a2797c47867890547c8f73163257
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Thu Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102981
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
*** Bug 103388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103388
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
Bug ID: 103392
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in simplify_bound, at
fortran/simplify.c:4273
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103391
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103391
Bug ID: 103391
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
Bug ID: 103390
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103389
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103389
Bug ID: 103389
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in estimate_move_cost, at
tree-inline.c:4191
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103387
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103386
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
callfoo
jmp .L3
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211123 (experimental) (GCC)
Started with
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=4b3a325f07acebf47e82de227ce1d5ba62f5bcae
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103339
--- Comment #3 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Turns out that the error from Bug 99861 just happens occasionally when
compiling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103086
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The branches all get this testcase wrong:
#include
#include "../util/testsuite_allocator.h"
struct Deleter
{
int deleter_member = -1;
using pointer = __gnu_test::NullablePointer;
void
ession algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211123 (experimental) (GCC)
- Running a simple C++ program to print an IEEE long double var using std::cout
~> cat test.cpp
#include
int main()
{
long double n = 0.1L;
std::cout << n;
return 0;
}
~> /home/maxiwell/usr/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103339
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Or not really. Removing a comment breaks it again, so I guess the compiler is
already in a bugged state that seems to work fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Tim Song says "This is another variant of CWG2335, which is currently blocked
on implementation experience and wording."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97120
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103339
--- Comment #1 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
In non-reduced code, I got the error from Bug 99861 which I solved with the
workaround above:
```
hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values
with a different
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
