https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xmh970252187 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106291
--- Comment #1 from jim x ---
https://godbolt.org/z/x5hPe5qoP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106291
Bug ID: 106291
Summary: Literal class can appear in the constant-expression of
a declaration of a bit-field
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106290
Bug ID: 106290
Summary: A non-static data member of an anonymous union member
appears in the default-member-initializer of another
should be well-formed
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106273
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 53294
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53294=edit
A patch
Something like this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106289
Bug ID: 106289
Summary: Value of polymorphic type as template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
proc
.LFE0:
.size bar, .-bar
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 13.0.0 20220713 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 stack-protector]$
There should be a stack canary check before calling foo since foo won't return.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93413
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benni at stuerz dot xyz
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93413
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 106287 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106287
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106285
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Re the grouping of related notes, I notice that with -fdiagnostics-format=json
there is no proper structure. All the notes are just children of the error, at
the same level. So the nesting is something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106287
Bug ID: 106287
Summary: Implicit virtual destructor needs to be explicitly
defaulted for constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106043
Jens Seifert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106285
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106043
--- Comment #1 from Jens Seifert ---
Found in documentation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-11.3.0/gcc/PowerPC-AltiVec-Built-in-Functions-Available-on-ISA-3_002e1.html#PowerPC-AltiVec-Built-in-Functions-Available-on-ISA-3_002e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106260
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/598371.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106286
Bug ID: 106286
Summary: fd_diagnostic should implement
get_meaning_for_state_change vfunc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106276
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> This would help stop many folks, including me, reaching for their
> dictionaries
> to discover what the compiler is warning about.
Don't use a dictionary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106276
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Agreed. Inventing new imprecise terminology for it would not be an improvement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106275
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can specialize the std::__is_fast_hash trait for your custom hash if you
need to. Be aware that's an ABI change though (the container will cache the
hash code in each node if the hash function is "not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106285
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106285
Bug ID: 106285
Summary: Reduce visual noise and confusing grouping when
printing overload candidate errors
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106284
Bug ID: 106284
Summary: False positives from -Wanalyzer-tainted-array-index
with optimized conditionals
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106283
Bug ID: 106283
Summary: RFE: analyzer handling of close_range and closefrom
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103366
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106272
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106276
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
IMHO no. "Copy elision" is a well-established term in C++ and naming it
differently would be more confusing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106276
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106272
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106272
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86a15b266a7284f3aa1b12494a475f31416b981d
commit r13-1689-g86a15b266a7284f3aa1b12494a475f31416b981d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105912
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105842
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105842
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f07778f6f92111aa0abfd0f669b148a0bda537a9
commit r13-1687-gf07778f6f92111aa0abfd0f669b148a0bda537a9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105912
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f70c18524221dcefa6cd26cee7b55503181bd912
commit r13-1688-gf70c18524221dcefa6cd26cee7b55503181bd912
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106274
--- Comment #4 from Lewis Hyatt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I'm not sure to what extent this is still required with respect to the
> diagnostic context though - you'd have to try.
Thanks for the explanation, the general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106260
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
IPA-CP is confused by seeing a local function which does not have any caller,
it expects that all such functions would be removed as unreachable.
The assert has been somewhat useful so I'd rather keep it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106275
--- Comment #6 from Chris Uzdavinis ---
Thank you for the information. If the equality comparison function is slow
enough, the large number of extra calls may not be an optimization.
While looking into it, the vastly different runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106277
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106266
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106266
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f35d65517a59565758107c5b1a51a5fa382f8d1a
commit r13-1686-gf35d65517a59565758107c5b1a51a5fa382f8d1a
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106282
Bug ID: 106282
Summary: m68k: Problem with thread-local storage and -mcpu=5206
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66968
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Here's another case, using the code from PR 106281:
template
class C
{
public:
C() = default;
template
C(AA, BB)
{ }
C(C&&) = default;
private:
struct __secret_tag { };
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106281
Bug ID: 106281
Summary: Order failed overload candidates so ones with wrong
number of params and inaccessible ones come last
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106274
--- Comment #3 from Lewis Hyatt ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> I think it's a dup of PR80922.
I think it's a bit different, if I understand correctly, PR80922 is asking for
something much more difficult, it wants the LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106253
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #10)
> For completeness, I reduced the Armhf failure and that seems to happen on
> bswap.
>
> #include
> #include
>
> void
> __sha256_process_block (uint32_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106276
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2691107f973770bafc84b9e8aae7c791053f411e
commit r10-10894-g2691107f973770bafc84b9e8aae7c791053f411e
Author: Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106253
--- Comment #10 from Tamar Christina ---
For completeness, I reduced the Armhf failure and that seems to happen on
bswap.
#include
#include
void
__sha256_process_block (uint32_t *buffer, size_t len, uint32_t *W)
{
for (unsigned int t = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106279
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #1)
> > iwmmxt has been dead for 2 decades now - it's support has most likely
> > bitrotted, so I'm surprised anyone is trying to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106279
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #1)
> iwmmxt has been dead for 2 decades now - it's support has most likely
> bitrotted, so I'm surprised anyone is trying to use it...
Time to remove support for it, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106279
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106278
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106280
Bug ID: 106280
Summary: dom_oracle::register_transitives is expensive for deep
dominator trees
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106279
Bug ID: 106279
Summary: reload problem on arm iwmmxt
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106156
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106249
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase from comment#4 is now fixed, the original issue with
-funreachable-traps is still present.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106249
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c479c40f8c8fee0fb70e8a365b61c55739f448e1
commit r13-1653-gc479c40f8c8fee0fb70e8a365b61c55739f448e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106156
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106278
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on valid code at -Os|[13 Regression] ICE on
-sanitizers
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20220713 (experimental) [master r13-1652-g43997608a08] (GCC)
[553] %
[553] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[554] %
[554] % gcctk -Os
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106276
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106273
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106274
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I think it's a dup of PR80922.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106249
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE in |[13 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
76 matches
Mail list logo
