https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wdefault-bitfield-sign |add warning for bitfield
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12341
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
is this expected to be a new argument accepted by the `-Wshadow=` flag, or its
own separate flag entirely?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Thanks for having confirmed my findings and doubts -- seems I did correctly
understand a thing or two. ;-)
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
Hi Tom!
Taking this one to the mailing list; not directly related to PR104364:
On 2022-02-03T13:35:55+, "vries at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104364
> I've tested this using (recommended) driver 470.94 on boards:
(As not every user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 104092, which changed state.
Bug 104092 Summary: [12 Regression] Invalid -Wdangling-pointer warning after
writes by calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
commit r12-7044-g551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
commit r12-7044-g551aa75778a4c5165d9533cd447c8fc822f583e1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #40)
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
> >
> > --- Comment #37 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
>
> --- Comment #37 from Andrew Macleod ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||104378
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104378
Bug ID: 104378
Summary: (N - x) ^ N should be optimized to x if x <= N
(unsigned) and N is a pow2 - 1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104377
Bug ID: 104377
Summary: Unreachable code in create_specialized_node of
ipa-prop.c?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The second issue can be seen with:
#include
uint32_t countLeadingZeros32(uint32_t x)
{
if (x == 0)
return 32;
return (__builtin_clz(x)) ;
}
This gets optimized for aarch64 at the rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
Hello Andrew,
Can you please let me know your feedback on the patch?
Thanks,
Sundeep K.
-Original Message-
From: sundeep.kokko...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:40 AM
To: 'Andrew Pinski'
Cc: 'GCC Patches'
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix for GCC '-MF' option cannot deal
On 2/3/22 17:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/22 17:18, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:09 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/22 15:56, David Edelsohn wrote:
This series of patches has exploded memory usage and I can no longer
bootstrap GCC on AIX.
As with the Ranger problem
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, David Seifert via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 12:50 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:30:11PM +0100, David Seifert wrote:
> > > * `-Werror` can cause issues when a more recent version of GCC
> > > compiles
> > > ? an older version:
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103197
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #11)
> Segher,
> Will you commit your patch in stage4? Several issues are supposed to be
> fixed by your patch. Thanks.
Yes, of course, but there have been
Hi!
Please Cc: me on combine patches, I cannot keep up with gcc-patches@,
and even if I could I would miss things.
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 11:05:48AM -, Roger Sayle wrote:
> This patch addresses PR rtl-optimization/101885 which is a P2 wrong code
> regression. In combine, if the resulting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Óscar Fuentes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:44:48AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Although the previous patch was correct, the logic around what to do when
> the number of arguments is wrong was still hard to understand. It should
> be better now. I'm now explicitly counting the number of expected arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104376
Bug ID: 104376
Summary: Failure to optimize clz equivalent to clz
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101885
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)> The failed match attempt
> (parallel [
> (set (reg:QI 82 [ b_lsm_flag.26 ])
> (and:QI (reg:QI 143)
> (reg:QI 145)))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #11 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 99712, which changed state.
Bug 99712 Summary: Cannot elide aggregate parameter setup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99712
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101926
Bug 101926 depends on bug 104372, which changed state.
Bug 104372 Summary: [ARM] Unnecessary writes to stack when passing aggregate in
registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104372
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palchak at google dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. [member.functions] in the standard says
"For a non-virtual member function described in the C++ standard library, an
implementation may declare a different set of member function signatures,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #6)
> So IIUC you are applying modifications to libstdc++ that deviate from the
> published standard expecting that the committee will accept those changes.
> As a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> except something very contrived that uses SFINAE of concepts
s/of/or/
On 2/3/22 17:18, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:09 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/22 15:56, David Edelsohn wrote:
This series of patches has exploded memory usage and I can no longer
bootstrap GCC on AIX.
As with the Ranger problem exposed by Aldy's patch last September,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 103933 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:09 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 2/3/22 15:56, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > This series of patches has exploded memory usage and I can no longer
> > bootstrap GCC on AIX.
> >
> > As with the Ranger problem exposed by Aldy's patch last September,
> > something is not freeing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Rodgers ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #4)
> > > The fix is wrong. It changes atomic_notify_one and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104375
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104079
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82e31c8973eb1a752c2ffd01005efe291d35cee3
commit r12-7041-g82e31c8973eb1a752c2ffd01005efe291d35cee3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104368
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:731f4bf14fc89a595abb780a969d03e82b807763
commit r11-9537-g731f4bf14fc89a595abb780a969d03e82b807763
Author: Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104375
Bug ID: 104375
Summary: [x86] Failure to recognize bzhi patter nwhen shr is
present
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 2/3/22 15:56, David Edelsohn wrote:
This series of patches has exploded memory usage and I can no longer
bootstrap GCC on AIX.
As with the Ranger problem exposed by Aldy's patch last September,
something is not freeing memory.
Even on systems where GCC still bootstrap, this excessive memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
This series of patches has exploded memory usage and I can no longer
bootstrap GCC on AIX.
As with the Ranger problem exposed by Aldy's patch last September,
something is not freeing memory.
Even on systems where GCC still bootstrap, this excessive memory usage
severely damages GCC compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104369
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
This patch fixes various issues with how -fanalyzer handles "realloc"
seen when debugging PR analyzer/104369.
Previously it wasn't correctly copying over the contents of the old
buffer for the success-with-move case, leading to false
-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value diagnostics.
I also
It turned out that the analyzer wasn't treating calloc regions
as zero-filled, due to binding_cluster::fill_region getting an
unknown value for the byte_size_size_sval, and thus
get_or_create_repeated_svalue returning an unknown_svalue, which
was then used to fill the region.
Fixed thusly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104369
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ef328c293a336df0aead2d72c0c5ed9781a9861
commit r12-7040-g3ef328c293a336df0aead2d72c0c5ed9781a9861
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91082
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang rejects it with:
:8:5: error: non-const lvalue reference to type 'void ()' cannot bind
to a temporary of type ''
static_cast();
^
ICC rejects it with:
(8): error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104361
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Snapshot gcc-9-20220203 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20220203/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104361
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I looked at this paper for a different project a while ago, and it doesn't seem
like such a good match for C++ in general. While the basic idea looks simple
(use 2 counters, one for the thread that created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104374
Bug ID: 104374
Summary: attributes for signal safety and signal handling
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
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=104260
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104260
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a668ec0339c28b0725ded1e80d3276edb76b8b3
commit r12-7038-g5a668ec0339c28b0725ded1e80d3276edb76b8b3
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 04:29:39PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:13:36PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 2/3/22 19:44, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > On Feb 03 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> > >
> > > > +cd $LIB
> > > > +echo "$all_dirs" | xargs mkdir -p
> > > > +cd ..
> >
On 2/3/22 16:06, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/3/22 14:58, Patrick Palka wrote:
When synthesizing a defaulted comparison op from
maybe_instantiate_noexcept, we seem to be forgetting to instantiate the
noexcept-spec afterwards.
Hmm, there shouldn't be any
%ecx can't be used for both DRAP register and eh_return. Adjust find_drap_reg
to choose %edi for functions that uses __builtin_eh_return to avoid the assert
in ix86_expand_epilogue that enforces this rule.
2022-02-03 Uroš Bizjak
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/104362
* config/i386/i386.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #6 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #4)
> > The fix is wrong. It changes atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all instead
> > of atomic<>::wait.
>
> It
On 2/3/22 16:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 04:04:57PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think it would be clearer to leave the !DECL_P case alone and add
/* In C++ it is unspecified, and so non-constant, whether two
equivalent strings have the same address. */
else if
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:13:36PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 2/3/22 19:44, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Feb 03 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > > +cd $LIB
> > > +echo "$all_dirs" | xargs mkdir -p
> > > +cd ..
> > > +
> >
> > $LIB always contains slashes.
> >
>
> And what is the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On 2/3/22 15:55, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:20 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/3/22 12:04, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/2/22 12:09, Patrick Palka wrote:
The satisfaction cache needs to look through ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104362
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:599122fa690d55e5e14d74f4d514b2d8b6a98505
commit r12-7037-g599122fa690d55e5e14d74f4d514b2d8b6a98505
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103872
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #4 from Óscar Fuentes ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #1)
> > Also, the template functions atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all take a
> > const argument, when it should
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 04:04:57PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > I think it would be clearer to leave the !DECL_P case alone and add
> > >
> > > /* In C++ it is unspecified, and so non-constant, whether two
> > > equivalent strings have the same address. */
> > > else if
On 2/3/22 19:44, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Feb 03 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
+cd $LIB
+echo "$all_dirs" | xargs mkdir -p
+cd ..
+
$LIB always contains slashes.
And what is the problem? You're too brief..
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104345
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/3/22 14:58, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > When synthesizing a defaulted comparison op from
> > maybe_instantiate_noexcept, we seem to be forgetting to instantiate the
> > noexcept-spec afterwards.
>
> Hmm, there shouldn't be any need to instantiate the
On 2/3/22 15:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:07:03PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
--- gcc/fold-const.h.jj 2022-02-01 20:10:51.235856007 +0100
+++ gcc/fold-const.h2022-02-03 15:02:02.700228631 +0100
-/* Non-zero if we are folding constants inside an initializer; zero
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #4)
> The fix is wrong. It changes atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all instead
> of atomic<>::wait.
It changed both.
> So right now atomic<>::wait remains
This patch addresses the "increased register pressure" regression on
nvptx-none caused by my change to transition the backend to a
STORE_FLAG_VALUE = 1 target. This improved code generation for the
more common case of producing 0/1 Boolean values, but unfortunately
made things marginally worse
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:20 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 2/3/22 12:04, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/2/22 12:09, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >>> The satisfaction cache needs to look through ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT
> >>> template arguments before calling
Hi Mark!
On 2022-01-29T21:20:45+0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:42:41PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> I added a filesIsImportant filter to the buildbot gccrs scheduler:
>>
>> gccrs_files = ["gcc/rust/", "gcc/testsuite/rust/", "gcc/config/.*/*-rust.c"]
Is that last one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Óscar Fuentes from comment #1)
> Also, the template functions atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all take a
> const argument, when it should be non-const.
>
> The `volatile' arg overload is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 104119, which changed state.
Bug 104119 Summary: [12 Regression] unexpected -Wformat-overflow after strlen
in ILP32 since Ranger integration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
With a recent checkout of gcc12 (20220203), on a x86_64-pc-linux-gnu host,
the following source gives bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:07:03PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > --- gcc/fold-const.h.jj 2022-02-01 20:10:51.235856007 +0100
> > +++ gcc/fold-const.h2022-02-03 15:02:02.700228631 +0100
> > -/* Non-zero if we are folding constants inside an initializer; zero
> > - otherwise. */
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #2 from Óscar Fuentes ---
The breakage mentioned on my previous message was introduced by a wrong fix for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Óscar Fuentes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c9f762ad02f398c27275688c3494332f69237f5
commit r12-7033-g3c9f762ad02f398c27275688c3494332f69237f5
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
On 2/3/22 14:58, Patrick Palka wrote:
When synthesizing a defaulted comparison op from
maybe_instantiate_noexcept, we seem to be forgetting to instantiate the
noexcept-spec afterwards.
Hmm, there shouldn't be any need to instantiate the noexcept-spec
afterwards, it should have been set by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103933
--- Comment #1 from Óscar Fuentes ---
Also, the template functions atomic_notify_one and atomic_notify_all take a
const argument, when it should be non-const.
The `volatile' arg overload is missing too.
On 2/3/22 12:04, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/2/22 12:09, Patrick Palka wrote:
The satisfaction cache needs to look through ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT
template arguments before calling iterative_hash_template_arg and
template_args_equal, which would otherwise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104358
--- Comment #1 from qingzhe huang ---
Sorry about the long description and here is the short version to highlight the
core issue. Given this template function with a templated lambda as parameter:
template
using Lambda=decltype(+[](T){});
On 2/3/22 11:49, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here a stale value of TYPE_DEPENDENT_P/_P_VALID for f's function
type after replacing its DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT with its parsed (dependent)
noexcept-spec leads us to try to instantiate g's noexcept-spec (which
incorrectly appears non-dependent) ahead of time,
1 - 100 of 299 matches
Mail list logo
