[Bug c/94558] New: Designated initializer inside _Generic is misinterpreted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94558
Bug ID: 94558
Summary: Designated initializer inside _Generic is
misinterpreted
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: elronnd at elronnd dot net
Target Milestone: ---
POC:
typedef struct{int _;} A;
typedef struct{int _;} B;
typedef union {
A a;
B b;
} O;
#define NO(o) _Generic((o), \
A: ((O){.a=o}), \
B: ((O){.b=o}))
int main() {
A a;
O o = NO(a);
}
Generates the error message:
incompatible types when initializing type ‘int’ using type ‘A’ {aka ‘struct
’}
Because it's trying to initialize the '_' field in 'A' with 'a', instead of the
'a' field in 'O'.
[Bug libstdc++/94559] New: Nitpick: constexpr_fill test isn't constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94559 Bug ID: 94559 Summary: Nitpick: constexpr_fill test isn't constexpr Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: eyalroz at technion dot ac.il Target Milestone: --- This test: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_fill.cc is named constexpr_fill, but that test is a runtime one.
[Bug libstdc++/94559] Nitpick: std::array constexpr_fill test isn't constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94559 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #1 from Eyal Rozenberg --- Sorry, I misread.
[Bug target/94494] gcc-10 unrecognizable insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f883c46b4877f637e0fa5025b4d6b5c9040ec566 commit r10-7687-gf883c46b4877f637e0fa5025b4d6b5c9040ec566 Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Sat Apr 11 11:51:41 2020 +0200 i386: Fix REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE mode conditions. V4SI, V8HI and V16QI modes of redux__scal_ expander expand with SSE2 instructions (PSRLDQ and PCMPGTx) so use TARGET_SSE2 as relevant mode iterator codition. PR target/94494 * config/i386/sse.md (REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE): Use TARGET_SSE2 condition for V4SI, V8HI and V16QI modes. testsuite/ChangeLog: PR target/94494 * gcc.target/i386/pr94494.c: New test.
[Bug c++/94560] New: ICE on recursive templated alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94560
Bug ID: 94560
Summary: ICE on recursive templated alias
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pacoarjonilla at yahoo dot es
Target Milestone: ---
Maybe related to Bug ID 93085
Only on GCC10 with --std=c++17 and --std=c++20
ICE with tuples and variants. Could not replicate with my own types.
>
#include
template
using B = std::tuple;
using A = std::tuple>;
int main()
{
B b;
}
>
Compiler output:
prueba.cc:6:24: error: ‘A’ was not declared in this scope
6 | using A = std::tuple>;
|^
prueba.cc:6:24: error: template argument 1 is invalid
prueba.cc:6:25: error: template argument 1 is invalid
6 | using A = std::tuple>;
| ^~
prueba.cc:6:16: error: ‘’ in namespace ‘std’ does not name a
type
6 | using A = std::tuple>;
|^~~
prueba.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
prueba.cc:10:7: internal compiler error: in alias_ctad_tweaks, at cp/pt.c:28319
10 | B b;
| ^
0x674f3f alias_ctad_tweaks
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:28319
0x674f3f deduction_guides_for
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:28491
0x9f5ccb do_class_deduction
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:28596
0x9f5ccb do_auto_deduction(tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node*, int,
auto_deduction_context, tree_node*, int)
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:28725
0x929e5c cp_finish_decl(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool, tree_node*, int)
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c:7503
0x9d0f69 cp_parser_init_declarator
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:20906
0x9b2422 cp_parser_simple_declaration
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13731
0x9b418a cp_parser_declaration_statement
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13163
0x9b4e0d cp_parser_statement
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:11469
0x9b5d38 cp_parser_statement_seq_opt
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:11835
0x9b5e18 cp_parser_compound_statement
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:11785
0x9cd1b5 cp_parser_function_body
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:23059
0x9cd1b5 cp_parser_ctor_initializer_opt_and_function_body
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:23110
0x9d050d cp_parser_function_definition_after_declarator
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:28958
0x9d1589 cp_parser_function_definition_from_specifiers_and_declarator
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:28874
0x9d1589 cp_parser_init_declarator
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:20666
0x9b2422 cp_parser_simple_declaration
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13731
0x9db752 cp_parser_declaration
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13430
0x9dbeda cp_parser_translation_unit
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:4731
0x9dbeda c_parse_file()
/home/paco/git/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:43829
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug target/94494] gcc-10 unrecognizable insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59eddd9769057ee094cdae09b15b257cc3db690f commit r9-8491-g59eddd9769057ee094cdae09b15b257cc3db690f Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Sat Apr 11 13:22:52 2020 +0200 i386: Fix REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE mode conditions. V4SI, V8HI and V16QI modes of redux__scal_ expander expand with SSE2 instructions (PSRLDQ and PCMPGTx) so use TARGET_SSE2 as relevant mode iterator codition. PR target/94494 * config/i386/sse.md (REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE): Use TARGET_SSE2 condition for V4SI, V8HI and V16QI modes. testsuite/ChangeLog: PR target/94494 * gcc.target/i386/pr94494.c: New test.
[Bug target/94494] gcc-10 unrecognizable insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2fee90546d0f04595301af8f3786b8e1671814a commit r9-8492-gd2fee90546d0f04595301af8f3786b8e1671814a Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Sat Apr 11 13:25:51 2020 +0200 i386: Fix REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE mode conditions. V4SI, V8HI and V16QI modes of redux__scal_ expander expand with SSE2 instructions (PSRLDQ and PCMPGTx) so use TARGET_SSE2 as relevant mode iterator codition. PR target/94494 * config/i386/sse.md (REDUC_SSE_SMINMAX_MODE): Use TARGET_SSE2 condition for V4SI, V8HI and V16QI modes. testsuite/ChangeLog: PR target/94494 * gcc.target/i386/pr94494.c: New test.
[Bug target/94494] gcc-10 unrecognizable insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94494 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak --- Fixed for gcc-9.4+.
[Bug c++/90526] Missing DW_AT_const_value for constexpr field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90526
Hannes Domani changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ssbssa at yahoo dot de
--- Comment #1 from Hannes Domani ---
The DW_AT_const_value is also emitted if the variable is used, like:
int main()
{
foo p;
return !p.is_always_lock_free;
}
[Bug c++/86327] Spurious error on non-constant expression in constexpr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Fixed by r264171, will add the test.
[Bug target/94561] New: [10 Regression] ICE in ix86_get_ssemov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561
Bug ID: 94561
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in ix86_get_ssemov
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: asolokha at gmx dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
gcc-10.0.1-alpha20200405 snapshot (g:2a1a0c8c0db0aae50a2cebce59bd64334cd6ba2a)
ICEs when compiling the following testcase w/ -march=knl -O3 -funroll-loops:
struct xi {
long int mg;
int lx;
};
struct xi *di;
int *eu;
void
he (void);
int
m8 (int we, int i8)
{
int wd, cj = 0;
for (wd = 0; wd < 80; ++wd)
{
if (di->mg == 0 && (eu[wd] | !!we) == 0 && di->lx == 0)
continue;
if (i8 == 0)
he ();
++cj;
}
return cj;
}
% x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc-10.0.1 -march=knl -O3 -funroll-loops -c
cn71lqz4.c
during RTL pass: final
cn71lqz4.c: In function 'm8':
cn71lqz4.c:29:1: internal compiler error: in ix86_get_ssemov, at
config/i386/i386.c:4979
29 | }
| ^
0x718cbd ix86_get_ssemov
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.1_alpha20200405/work/gcc-10-20200405/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:4979
0xa34303 final_scan_insn_1
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.1_alpha20200405/work/gcc-10-20200405/gcc/final.c:3039
0xa3480b final_scan_insn(rtx_insn*, _IO_FILE*, int, int, int*)
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.1_alpha20200405/work/gcc-10-20200405/gcc/final.c:3152
0xa34917 final_1
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.1_alpha20200405/work/gcc-10-20200405/gcc/final.c:2020
0xa35524 rest_of_handle_final
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.1_alpha20200405/work/gcc-10-20200405/gcc/final.c:4658
0xa35524 execute
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.1_alpha20200405/work/gcc-10-20200405/gcc/final.c:4736
[Bug c++/86327] Spurious error on non-constant expression in constexpr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ded16a7782fd3a9e7b37291d04bca596b00b8bd commit r10-7688-g4ded16a7782fd3a9e7b37291d04bca596b00b8bd Author: Marek Polacek Date: Sat Apr 11 10:45:33 2020 -0400 c++: Add test for PR 86327. Fixed by r264171. PR c++/86327 * g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-return5.C: New test.
[Bug c++/86327] Spurious error on non-constant expression in constexpr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Fixed in GCC 9.
[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 86327, which changed state. Bug 86327 Summary: Spurious error on non-constant expression in constexpr function https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c++/94477] ICE in tsubst_expr, at cp/pt.c:18181
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94477 --- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha --- Is there some further work pending, or can this PR be closed?
[Bug target/93069] Assembler messages: Error: unsupported masking for `vextracti32x8'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93069 --- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha --- Is there some further work pending, or can this PR be closed?
[Bug target/93069] Assembler messages: Error: unsupported masking for `vextracti32x8'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93069 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Yes, there is a larger patch approved for GCC11, but not for GCC10.
[Bug c++/94477] ICE in tsubst_expr, at cp/pt.c:18181
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94477 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 8 doesn't support parallel master, so this is now fixed everywhere.
[Bug c++/94560] ICE on recursive templated alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94560 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Confirmed but looks invalid.
[Bug c++/55588] Failure to diagnose non-template-id prefixed by keyword template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||94404 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- This is CWG 96. Too late for GCC 10 but I'll take a look in GCC 11. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94404 [Bug 94404] [meta-bug] C++ core issues
[Bug bootstrap/89494] Bootstrap error when using GCC 4.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494 --- Comment #13 from Piotr Kubaj --- Breakage in GCC 10 was caused after 201900818 snapshot, but before 201900825 (201900825 is the first broken).
[Bug bootstrap/89494] Bootstrap error when using GCC 4.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494 --- Comment #14 from Piotr Kubaj --- Exact error for 10.0: In file included from /usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20190825/libgcc/libgcc2.c:56: /usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20190825/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__multi3': /usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20190825/libgcc/libgcc2.h:203:20: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in build_int_cst, at tree.c:1371 203 | #define __NDW(a,b) __ ## a ## ti ## b |^~ /usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20190825/libgcc/libgcc2.h:273:18: note: in expansion of macro '__NDW' 273 | #define __muldi3 __NDW(mul,3) | ^ /usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20190825/libgcc/libgcc2.c:548:1: note: in expansion of macro '__muldi3' 548 | __muldi3 (DWtype u, DWtype v) | ^~~~
[Bug target/94561] [10 Regression] ICE in ix86_get_ssemov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94561 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Confirmed, CC author.
[Bug fortran/94109] Memory leak introduced in 8.3.0->8.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Is there a test case?
[Bug fortran/94104] Request for diagnostic improvement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94104 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Would be useful, yes.
[Bug libstdc++/94562] New: C++20: std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr ill-formed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94562
Bug ID: 94562
Summary: C++20: std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr ill-formed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following program (using -Wall -Wextra -std=c++2a -pedantic) is rejected:
#include
bool ok = std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr;
int main()
{
}
with the following diagnostics:
>>
prog.cc:3:34: error: no match for 'operator<=>' (operand types are
'std::shared_ptr' and 'std::nullptr_t')
3 | bool ok = std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr;
|~~^~~
In file included from
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/stl_algobase.h:67,
from /opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/memory:63,
from prog.cc:1:
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/stl_iterator.h:474:5: note:
candidate: 'template requires
three_way_comparable_with<_IteratorR, _IteratorL, std::partial_ordering>
constexpr std::compare_three_way_result_t<_IteratorL, _IteratorR>
std::operator<=>(const std::reverse_iterator<_IteratorL>&, const
std::reverse_iterator<_IteratorR>&)' (reversed)
474 | operator<=>(const reverse_iterator<_IteratorL>& __x,
| ^~~~
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/stl_iterator.h:474:5: note:
template argument deduction/substitution failed:
prog.cc:3:38: note: mismatched types 'const
std::reverse_iterator<_IteratorL>' and 'std::nullptr_t'
3 | bool ok = std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr;
| ^~~
In file included from
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/stl_algobase.h:67,
from /opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/memory:63,
from prog.cc:1:
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/stl_iterator.h:1433:5: note:
candidate: 'template requires
three_way_comparable_with<_IteratorR, _IteratorL, std::partial_ordering>
constexpr std::compare_three_way_result_t<_IteratorL, _IteratorR>
std::operator<=>(const std::move_iterator<_IteratorL>&, const
std::move_iterator<_IteratorR>&)' (reversed)
1433 | operator<=>(const move_iterator<_IteratorL>& __x,
| ^~~~
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/stl_iterator.h:1433:5: note:
template argument deduction/substitution failed:
prog.cc:3:38: note: mismatched types 'const std::move_iterator<_IteratorL>'
and 'std::nullptr_t'
3 | bool ok = std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr;
| ^~~
In file included from /opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/ranges:45,
from
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/ranges_algobase.h:38,
from
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/ranges_uninitialized.h:36,
from /opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/memory:69,
from prog.cc:1:
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/optional:1036:5: note: candidate:
'template requires three_way_comparable_with<_Up, _Tp,
std::partial_ordering> constexpr std::compare_three_way_result_t<_IteratorL,
_IteratorR> std::operator<=>(const std::optional<_Tp>&, const
std::optional<_Up>&)' (reversed)
1036 | operator<=>(const optional<_Tp>& __x, const optional<_Up>& __y)
| ^~~~
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/optional:1036:5: note: template
argument deduction/substitution failed:
prog.cc:3:38: note: mismatched types 'const std::optional<_Tp>' and
'std::nullptr_t'
3 | bool ok = std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr;
| ^~~
In file included from /opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/ranges:45,
from
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/ranges_algobase.h:38,
from
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/ranges_uninitialized.h:36,
from /opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/memory:69,
from prog.cc:1:
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/optional:1051:5: note: candidate:
'template constexpr std::strong_ordering std::operator<=>(const
std::optional<_Tp>&, std::nullopt_t)' (reversed)
1051 | operator<=>(const optional<_Tp>& __x, nullopt_t) noexcept
| ^~~~
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/optional:1051:5: note: template
argument deduction/substitution failed:
prog.cc:3:38: note: mismatched types 'const std::optional<_Tp>' and
'std::nullptr_t'
3 | bool ok = std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr;
| ^~~
In file included from /opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/ranges:45,
from
/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/include/c++/10.0.1/bits/ranges_algobase.h:38,
from
/opt/wandbox/
[Bug fortran/94109] Memory leak introduced in 8.3.0->8.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109 --- Comment #2 from Antony Lewis --- This may be the test case, though I'm not 100% sure: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94361
[Bug libstdc++/94562] C++20: std::shared_ptr{} <=> nullptr ill-formed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94562 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- No, it's because that operator isn't implemented yet.
[Bug fortran/94091] Erroneous __builtin_memcpy warning for character assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94091 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11 Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- This seems to be fixed on current trunk. Once I have wrestled git into a state that I can work with, I will commit a test case and then close as FIXED.
[Bug c++/94563] New: Relational operations between pointer and nullptr accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94563
Bug ID: 94563
Summary: Relational operations between pointer and nullptr
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code is accepted for language versions c++14, c++17, as well as
c++20 using the following additional compiler flags:
-Wall -Wextra -pedantic
bool test(int* p)
{
return p < nullptr;
}
int main()
{
}
It should be noted, that a warning is emitted, satisfying the requirement for a
diagnostic in a strict sense:
>>
prog.cc: In function 'bool test(int*)':
prog.cc:3:12: warning: ordered comparison of pointer with integer zero
[-Wextra]
3 | return p < nullptr;
| ~~^
0
>>
This code should be ill-formed since the acceptance of
http://wg21.link/n3624
[Bug c++/94563] Relational operations between pointer and nullptr accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94563
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
To clarify the actual bug character of this issue, the following example shows
it more clearly:
template
bool test(T*)
{
return true;
}
int main()
{
test((int*)(nullptr));
}
This program should be ill-formed because the invalid expression
((T*) 0) < nullptr
should not make test available, but the code is accepted without any
diagnostics.
[Bug c++/94564] New: C++20: Three-way comparison between pointer and nullptr accepted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94564
Bug ID: 94564
Summary: C++20: Three-way comparison between pointer and
nullptr accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following program is accepted when compiling against C++20, but should be
rejected, because the C++20 working draft does not support three-way comparison
between pointer and std::nullptr_t (See [expr.spaceship] p6):
Compiler options:
-Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++20
//---
#include
template nullptr), true) = false>
void test(T*)
{
}
int main()
{
test((int*)(nullptr));
}
//---
[Bug libstdc++/94565] New: C++20: Comparing comparison category types against 0/nullptr is not noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94565
Bug ID: 94565
Summary: C++20: Comparing comparison category types against
0/nullptr is not noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following program should be accepted, but is rejected due to a violation of
the static_assertion:
Compiler options:
-Wall -Wextra -pedantic "-std=c++20"
//-
#include
int main()
{
static_assert(noexcept(std::partial_ordering::less == 0));
}
//-
prog.cc: In function 'int main()':
prog.cc:5:17: error: static assertion failed
5 | static_assert(noexcept(std::partial_ordering::less == 0));
| ^~
The corresponding comparison functions for are all declared as noexcept
([cmp.partialord], [cmp.weakord], [cmp.strongord]), so the clear intention is
that such an comparison should be observable as non-throwing operations. The
reason why above test fails for all of the existing mixed comparison functions
of all the three comparison category types against 0/nullptr is caused by the
fact that the implementation-internal type std::__cmp_cat::__unspec in header
misses to declare its converting constructor as noexcept:
struct __unspec
{
constexpr __unspec(__unspec*) { }
};
[Bug tree-optimization/94566] New: conversion between std::strong_ordering and int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94566
Bug ID: 94566
Summary: conversion between std::strong_ordering and int
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
#include
int conv1(std::strong_ordering s){
if(s==std::strong_ordering::less) return -1;
if(s==std::strong_ordering::equal) return 0;
if(s==std::strong_ordering::greater) return 1;
__builtin_unreachable();
}
std::strong_ordering conv2(int i){
switch(i){
case -1: return std::strong_ordering::less;
case 0: return std::strong_ordering::equal;
case 1: return std::strong_ordering::greater;
default: __builtin_unreachable();
}
}
Compiling with -std=gnu++2a -O3. I would like the compiler to notice that those
are just NOP (at most a sign-extension). Clang manages it for conv2. Gcc
generates:
movl$-1, %eax
cmpb$-1, %dil
je .L1
xorl%eax, %eax
testb %dil, %dil
setne %al
.L1:
ret
and
xorl%eax, %eax
testl %edi, %edi
je .L10
cmpl$1, %edi
sete%al
leal-1(%rax,%rax), %eax
.L10:
ret
(apparently the C++ committee thinks it is a good idea to provide a type that
is essentially an int that can only be -1, 0 or 1, but not provide any direct
way to convert to/from int)
[Bug c++/94550] False positive with -Wparentheses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94550 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-04-11 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Do you have a full example? Where the problem occurs since your example does not compile at all.
[Bug ada/87972] remove -f*-prefix-map= options from Ada Library Information files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87972 Nicolas Boulenguez changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Boulenguez --- This patch does not fix the initial problem. Imagine a compilation driven by gnatmake with gnatmake main.adb -cargs -fdebug-prefix-map=OLD=NEW During the compilation phase: gcc -c -fdebug-prefix-map=OLD=NEW main.adb * does not write the path to .o (because of the option) * does not write the path to .ali (because of the patch) This is good. However, during the link phase, the source generated by the linker (b~main.adb) is compiled by gnatlink. The flags are taken from main.ali, they do not contain -fdebug-prefix-map anymore. So the path appears in b~main.o then the executable, which is exactly what we want to avoid. The problem is more general, see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2016-November/46.html Sorry for the noise.
[Bug tree-optimization/94567] New: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94567
Bug ID: 94567
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
It's a recent regression. Bisection points to g:529ea7d9596b26ba103578eeab
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 10.0.1 20200411 (experimental) [master revision
bb87d5cc77d:75961caccb7:f883c46b4877f637e0fa5025b4d6b5c9040ec566] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk abc.c ; ./a.out
4
$ gcc-trunk -O2 abc.c ; ./a.out
0
$ cat abc.c
volatile int a = 1, b;
short c, d = 4, e = 53736, f = 2, g;
int(h)(int i, int j) { return i && j ? 0 : i + j; }
int main() {
for (; a; a = 0) {
unsigned short k = e;
g = k >> 3;
if (h(g < (f || c), b))
d = 0;
}
printf("%X\n", d);
}
