https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #10 from Michael_S ---
BTW, the same ideas as in the code above could improve speed of division
operation (on modern 64-bit HW) by factor of 3 (on Intel) or 2 (on AMD).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105297
Bug ID: 105297
Summary: [12 Regression] new modules 'xtreme' test cases FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105296
Bug ID: 105296
Summary: libgccjit crashes when creating a struct constructor
for an aligned struct type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105287
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
Initial analysis ...
1. The coroutines code is supposed to ensure that the local variables are given
the context of the enclosing function (whether that is the ramp or the outlined
actor).
coroutines.cc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105295
Bug ID: 105295
Summary: missed optimization with -ftrapv for conditional
constants
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/4rojo77a7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105293
Elmar Stellnberger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52821|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105294
Bug ID: 105294
Summary: restrict pointer - disagreement with specification
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105293
Bug ID: 105293
Summary: g++-8/i586: internal compiler error trying to compile
with g++ (evtl. related to qt5/moc bug)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105292
Bug ID: 105292
Summary: [sparc64] ICE in expand_expr_real_2 on sparc64 when
compiling with -mcpu=niagara4
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105282
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 52819
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52819=edit
0001-gcov-profile-Allow-negative-counts-of-indirect-calls.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105291
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues/31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105291
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang implements the wording correctly:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2036r3.html#pnum_3
So int a = 0; [a] (decltype(a)) { }; is ill-formed now. But I'm not convinced
that's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105291
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> > + using __local_end_t = __decltype(__local_end);
This code isn't valid pre-C++11 so we can just use decltype, not __decltype.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105291
Bug ID: 105291
Summary: include/c++/12.0.1/debug/safe_unordered_container.h:71
:28: error: captured variable '__local_end' cannot
appear here
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105290
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is another bug related to how array types are messed up when it comes to
parsing. I suspect this is a dup of that one.
16 matches
Mail list logo