Dear Sir /Madam ,
Good day !
This is Mrs .chen from a trading company specializing in import. we have
been in this area for over 10 years , we are very interested in your products
.please send us your catalog , we will choose we need .
waiting for your reply .
Chen
At 2021-11-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104046
Bug ID: 104046
Summary: C++ compiler should forbid throw move-only type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On Linux/x86_64,
9d6a0f388eb048f8d87f47af78f07b5ce513bfe6 is the first bad commit
commit 9d6a0f388eb048f8d87f47af78f07b5ce513bfe6
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Sat Jan 15 16:41:40 2022 -0700
Add -Wdangling-pointer [PR63272].
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr57147-2.c -O2 -flto
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 12:44 AM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:39 PM Hongyu Wang wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion, here is the updated patch that survived
> > bootstrap/regtest.
>
> LGTM for me, but please get the final approval from Hongtao.
>
Ok,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101037
Pekka S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I don't even think llvm implements-ftrapping-math . Still not a gcc bug.
There is a bug request on changing the default already opened for gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I read that wrong. We have
Max. I suspect the issue is gcc has -ftrapping-math turned on by
default while clang does not.
Does -fno-trapping-math fix the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think gcc is correct and clang is wrong. Fmax treats Nan as missing data so
fmax is really just a.
This patch updates the memory order of atomic accesses to the waiter's
count to match libc++'s usage. It should be backported to GCC11.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
From f5ed7674f86283db4f4ff49a2cc65d4f852413a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Rodgers
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2022 17:40:49 -0800
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
Bug ID: 104045
Summary: [AArch64] combine related to insn fmaxnm
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Not seeing anyone doing the obvious one-up, so JFTR:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-01-10 at 17:13 +0100, FX wrote:
> > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/asm-x86-lp64-1.c
>
> The purpose of these asm tests is to verify that the analyzer doesn't
> get confused by various
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 102074, which changed state.
Bug 102074 Summary: include/bits/atomic_timed_wait.h:215: possible missing
return ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102074
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102074
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84544
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
This detection is partially implemented in GCC 12 by the -Wdnagling-pointer:
$ cat pr49974.C && gcc -O -S -Wall pr49974.C
struct X { };
inline const X& f(const X& r) { return r; }
const X& g()
{
X x;
Rust symbols can have a .suffix because of compiler transformations.
These can be ignored in the demangled name. Which is what this patch
implements. By stopping at the first dot for v0 symbols and searching
backwards to the ending 'E' for legacy symbols.
An alternative implementation could be to
Martin, I've looked into removing the -Wno-error for this warning
for just a subset of targets. It seems doable with some hardcoding
in configure.ac but if you're planning to do the cleanup for all of
them I'm wondering if we should even bother. What do you think?
Martin
On 1/14/22 08:46,
Hi Eddy,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 01:50:52PM +0200, Eduard-Mihai Burtescu wrote:
> Apologies for the delay, the email fell through the cracks somehow.
And then I went on vacation... Sorry this fairly simple patch takes so
long.
> The updated patch looks like it would work alright, only needs a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90905
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
This still isn't diagnosed by GCC 12 even with its -Wuse-after-free and
-Wdangling-pointer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90906
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ranger infinite loop on a |ranger infinite loop on a
On 1/11/22 15:40, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/30/21 17:32, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Attached is a revised patch with the following changes based
on your comments:
1) Set and use statement uids to determine which statement
precedes which in the same basic block.
2) Avoid testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d6a0f388eb048f8d87f47af78f07b5ce513bfe6
commit r12-6606-g9d6a0f388eb048f8d87f47af78f07b5ce513bfe6
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6
commit r12-6605-g671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104044
Bug ID: 104044
Summary: Useless empty statements (across projects)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Weeks ---
Great, thanks!
--
Nathan
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 4:11 PM anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Snapshot gcc-11-20220115 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220115/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ooops, I meant AFFINITY clause in the message above, not ASSOCIATED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that the wrong-scope problem is introduced in gfc_finish_var_decl,
in this block of code:
/* Chain this decl to the pending declarations. Don't do pushdecl()
because this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I suspect they will fail if you default the linux compiler to
_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 then too. (I thought there was a configure option to do that
or maybe Debian/Ubuntu has patches for it I forget).
> On Jan 15, 2022, at 4:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 1/14/22 07:58, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 2022, at 9:15 AM, Michael Matz via Gcc wrote:
>>>
...
>>> But right now that's equivalent to making it observable,
>>> because we don't have any other terms than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29401b7b4581e9131e7057e263dcea8b40a6b5ab
commit r12-6604-g29401b7b4581e9131e7057e263dcea8b40a6b5ab
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #18 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #17)
> Patch posted
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/588520.html
Applying patch locally fixes build of compiler-rt from llvm-13 for me.
Hi Harald,
An early *ping* ...
OK. Thanks for the patch!
Best regards
Thomas
On 1/14/22 07:58, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
On Jan 14, 2022, at 9:15 AM, Michael Matz via Gcc wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Martin Uecker wrote:
Handling all volatile accesses in the very same way would be
possible but quite some work I don't see much value in.
I see some value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||weeks at iastate dot edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27424f10d4ad28fbcceb1c9fc767605b4d46494c
commit r11-9463-g27424f10d4ad28fbcceb1c9fc767605b4d46494c
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103777
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bd2fd2840789909f6088d1c00d2efe9567293b4
commit r11-9462-g3bd2fd2840789909f6088d1c00d2efe9567293b4
Author: Harald Anlauf
An early *ping* ...
Am 11.01.22 um 22:17 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Fortran:
Dear Fortranners,
when digging into the issue pointed out in the PR by Gerhard it turned
out that there were several issues with the TRANSFER intrinsics in the
case MOLD was CHARACTER(kind=4). Default CHARACTER was
Modernize ix86_expand_sse_movcc to use expand_simple_{unop,binop}
infrastructure to avoid manual twiddling with output registers.
Also fix a couple of inconsistent vector_all_ones_operand usages,
break a couple of unnecessary else-if chains, eliminate common
subexpressions and do some general code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60679
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104043
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Am Samstag, den 15.01.2022, 16:33 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2022, 09:00 Martin Uecker, wrote:
>
> > Am Freitag, den 14.01.2022, 19:54 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, 14:17 Michael Matz via Gcc,
> > wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Hi, Richard,
This is the updated version for the change of "Enable -Wuninitialized +
-ftrivial-auto-var-init for address taken variables”.
Compared to the previous patch, I mainly made the following change:
Delete the 4th parameter of “warn_uninit”, construct the warning message string
based
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:39 PM Hongyu Wang wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, here is the updated patch that survived
> bootstrap/regtest.
LGTM for me, but please get the final approval from Hongtao.
Thanks,
Uros.
> > Please note reg_mentioned_p in the above condition. This function
> >
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 12:23 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:42:55AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Yes, that would be nice. XFmode is used for long double, and not obsolete.
>
> Ok, that seems to work. Compared to the incremental patch I've posted, I
> also had to add
Thanks for the suggestion, here is the updated patch that survived
bootstrap/regtest.
> Please note reg_mentioned_p in the above condition. This function
> returns nonzero if register op0 appears somewhere within op1 and is
> critical for the correct operation of your patch.
I added
On Sat, 15 Jan 2022, 09:00 Martin Uecker, wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 14.01.2022, 19:54 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, 14:17 Michael Matz via Gcc,
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > Handling all volatile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104043
Bug ID: 104043
Summary: Non-type template specialization with another type is
accepted but ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
Hi FX,
> On 15 Jan 2022, at 14:19, FX via Gcc wrote:
>
>> The purpose of these asm tests is to verify that the analyzer doesn't
>> get confused by various inline assembler directives used in the source
>> of the Linux kernel. So in theory they ought to work on any host, with
>> a gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
erm, that is probably _FORTIFY_SOURCE from the command line.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This is a "canonical types differ for identical types" ICE, which started
> with r11-4682. It's a bit tricky to explain. Consider:
>
> template struct S {
> S bar() noexcept(T::value); // #1
> S foo() noexcept(T::value);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
FX, You might be able to force Darwin to use the non-checked versions (perhaps
by adding -D_USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL=0)
Hi David,
> The purpose of these asm tests is to verify that the analyzer doesn't
> get confused by various inline assembler directives used in the source
> of the Linux kernel. So in theory they ought to work on any host, with
> a gcc configured for a suitable target.
>
> These tests are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103603
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:07 AM Purvak Baliyan via Gcc wrote:
>
> Respected Sir/Madam
>
> I am Purvak Baliyan, an Information Technology undergrad, I have entered my
> third year at DR. Akhilesh Das Gupta Institute of Technology &
> Management(ADGITM). I am new to open source contributions but i
Hi!
Sorry for the delay in response.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 02:35:25PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> So with
>
> +/* Mark start and end of dynamic initialization of a variable. */
> +DEF_INTERNAL_FN (DYNAMIC_INIT_START, ECF_LEAF | ECF_NOTHROW, ". r ")
> +DEF_INTERNAL_FN (DYNAMIC_INIT_END,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
Bug ID: 104042
Summary: Four memcpy/memset analyzer failures on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Jeff, David, do you need any more input from my side?
-- Marc
Am Sa., 8. Jan. 2022 um 17:32 Uhr schrieb Jeff Law :
>
>
>
> On 1/6/2022 6:53 AM, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-12-19 at 22:30 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> >> This patch fixes a memory leak in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
jyong at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Linux/x86_64,
d3ff7420e941931d32ce2e332e7968fe67ba20af is the first bad commit
commit d3ff7420e941931d32ce2e332e7968fe67ba20af
Author: Andre Vieira
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:34:15 2021 +
[vect] Re-analyze all modes for epilogues
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c (internal
On Linux/x86_64,
69561fc781aca3dea3aa4d5d562ef5a502965924 is the first bad commit
commit 69561fc781aca3dea3aa4d5d562ef5a502965924
Author: Hafiz Abid Qadeer
Date: Fri Sep 24 10:04:12 2021 +0100
Add support for allocate clause (OpenMP 5.0).
caused
FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/allocate-2.f90
On Linux/x86_64,
492954263e39346287a5a2a32bcc5312466a0ee1 is the first bad commit
commit 492954263e39346287a5a2a32bcc5312466a0ee1
Author: Francois-Xavier Coudert
Date: Sun Jan 2 11:36:23 2022 +0100
Fortran: Allow IEEE_CLASS to identify signaling NaNs
caused
FAIL:
On Linux/x86_64,
74abb0beb420830e52dfc6b3ee74e77dae8e31a3 is the first bad commit
commit 74abb0beb420830e52dfc6b3ee74e77dae8e31a3
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri Jan 14 15:21:40 2022 +0100
testsuite: rename 2 files.
caused
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr57993-2.C -O0 (test for excess errors)
On Linux/x86_64,
6b14100b9504800768da726dcb81f1857db3b493 is the first bad commit
commit 6b14100b9504800768da726dcb81f1857db3b493
Author: Francois-Xavier Coudert
Date: Wed Jan 12 11:19:37 2022 +0100
Fortran: fix testcase compiler flags
caused
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/signaling_1.f90 -O0
On Linux/x86_64,
d686d5d85c23451c03799dc55e456b73065f7333 is the first bad commit
commit d686d5d85c23451c03799dc55e456b73065f7333
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fri Jan 14 12:07:49 2022 +0100
c++: Reject in constant evaluation address comparisons of start of one var
and end of another
On Linux/x86_64,
d8b64476138671f3d89cd66f224a9b59e465631b is the first bad commit
commit d8b64476138671f3d89cd66f224a9b59e465631b
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri Jan 14 15:04:33 2022 +0100
testsuite: rename files in c-c++-common.
caused
FAIL: c-c++-common/Walloca-larger-than.c
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:16:23PM +, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> This patch removes the "sorry" message for the OpenMP "requires
> dynamic_allocators" feature in C, C++ and Fortran.
>
> The clause is supposed to state that the user code will not work without the
> omp_alloc/omp_free and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please don't change the resolution to FIXED. There was no GCC bug, and so
nothing was fixed. The correct resolution is INVALID.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a script that's supposed to pick up those macro inconsistencies, I
wonder why it's not working.
The aliasing violation is real, we should use memset instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:42:55AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Yes, that would be nice. XFmode is used for long double, and not obsolete.
Ok, that seems to work. Compared to the incremental patch I've posted, I
also had to add handling of the case where we have just
x == y ? 0 : x < y ? -1 : 1
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 10:56 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 09:29:05AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2022-01-14 11:51:34.432384170 +0100
> > > +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2022-01-14 18:22:41.140906449 +0100
> > > @@ -23886,6 +23886,18 @@
Respected Sir/Madam
I am Purvak Baliyan, an Information Technology undergrad, I have entered my
third year at DR. Akhilesh Das Gupta Institute of Technology &
Management(ADGITM). I am new to open source contributions but i am well
aware of C/C++, Data Structure and Algorithms, and HTML & CSS. I
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 09:29:05AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2022-01-14 11:51:34.432384170 +0100
> > +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2022-01-14 18:22:41.140906449 +0100
> > @@ -23886,6 +23886,18 @@ (define_insn "hreset"
> >[(set_attr "type" "other")
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104032
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
bugzilla at cems dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93748
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #3)
> Are you sure about the "will not be used"? Bug 80055 is still open.
Right that bug should track putting those strings in the .pot which we really
should not be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Am Freitag, den 14.01.2022, 19:54 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, 14:17 Michael Matz via Gcc, wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Handling all volatile accesses in the very same way would be
> > > > > > possible but quite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93748
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Since all 4 are internal compiler error, they will not be used for
> translation and the rules for diagnostic does not need to apply here.
Are you sure about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
Bug ID: 104041
Summary: static_assert failure triggered by non-selected
template specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:56 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> C++20:
> #include
> auto cmp4way(double a, double b)
> {
> return a <=> b;
> }
> expands to:
> ucomisd %xmm1, %xmm0
> jp .L8
> movl$0, %eax
> jne .L8
> .L2:
> ret
>
Hi Jason,
Hope you are well. Apologies, I've not had time to sit down and look at
this since last month I quit my old job, then I had family around for the
whole of the Christmas period, and then even more recently I've had to
start my new job.
In any case happy that you managed to figure it all
97 matches
Mail list logo
