https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93589
Bug ID: 93589
Summary: Template instantiation creates a conversion warning
when it should not
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93588
Bug ID: 93588
Summary: Vectorized load followed by FMA pessimizes on Haswell
from version 8.1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93587
Bug ID: 93587
Summary: [RX] bclr,bnot,bset on byte memory with bit 7 not
fused
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93586
--- Comment #2 from Qirun Zhang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> (In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #0)
> > commit ede31f6ffe73357705e95016046e77c7e3d6ad13
> > Author: Jan Hubicka
> > Date: Tue Oct 1 21:46:09 2019 +0200
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93586
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93586
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #0)
> commit ede31f6ffe73357705e95016046e77c7e3d6ad13
> Author: Jan Hubicka
> Date: Tue Oct 1 21:46:09 2019 +0200
g:ede31f6ffe73357705e95016046e77c7e3d6ad13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93585
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200204 (experimental) [master revision
5f0653a8b75:037d7906159:5bc9d2f5ed4c39a7cad74db34e2bb125e012fa60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93585
Bug ID: 93585
Summary: Linker resolves variable with extern variable of same
name but different type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92003
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93567
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91102
Taras Kondratiuk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kondratyuk.taras at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84275
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93543
--- Comment #7 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
Thank you - and I just received confirmation that also the new patch
addresses the original issue coming from a FreeBSD user with clang 9.0.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93584
Bug ID: 93584
Summary: std::string::find_first_not_of is about 9X slower than
strspn
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87213
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I don't know how I reproduced this before, but I cannot any more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92413
--- Comment #3 from David Blaikie ---
Ah, miswrote the example, here:
template struct C {void foo();};
template struct C;
template void C::foo() {
static_assert(sizeof(T) == 1);
}
Here's a godbolt comparing Clang trunk and GCC trunk:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93579
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Of course it first tried to do
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
(set (reg:DI 101 [ _9 ])
(ctz:DI (reg/v:DI 98 [ x ])))
(set (reg:DI 100)
(ctz:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
-mtune=z13 seems to enable more inlining so many of the past-the-end references
to the tempGrab local variable end up inlined into the bodies of the functions
that define them.
For example:
PassivGrab.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92593
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 93551, which changed state.
Bug 93551 Summary: [10 Regression] Call from templated function to constrained
constructor segfaults when attempting to narrow to bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93551
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93551
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93551
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85409531ff032a008ebfbb715344648f15492dac
commit r10-6438-g85409531ff032a008ebfbb715344648f15492dac
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67727
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67727, which changed state.
Bug 67727 Summary: [concepts] parameterized constraint not being checked for
unused variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67727
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67720
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67720, which changed state.
Bug 67720 Summary: [concepts] bug with recursive constrained function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67720
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67719, which changed state.
Bug 67719 Summary: [concepts] bug with concepts using logical or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67719
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67719
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67704, which changed state.
Bug 67704 Summary: [concepts] requirements not being applied to aliases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67704
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67704
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67697
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67697, which changed state.
Bug 67697 Summary: [concepts] ICE when using non-constexpr in requires
expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67697
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67686, which changed state.
Bug 67686 Summary: [concepts] segfault in finish_call_expr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67686
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67686
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67684, which changed state.
Bug 67684 Summary: [concepts] friend access not working with constrained
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67684
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67684
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67658, which changed state.
Bug 67658 Summary: [concepts] invalid code with constrained concepts compiles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67658
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67658
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67654, which changed state.
Bug 67654 Summary: [concepts] ICE when using concepts in constexpr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67654
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67654
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67545
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67545, which changed state.
Bug 67545 Summary: [concepts] Failure to properly substitute template
parameters into requires-clause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67545
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67319
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67319, which changed state.
Bug 67319 Summary: Short-hand concepts for variadic member functions broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67319
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67070
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 67070, which changed state.
Bug 67070 Summary: [concepts] Concept with negation and disjunction not checked
correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67070
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66844
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 66844, which changed state.
Bug 66844 Summary: [c++-concepts] Requires-expression parameter with void type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66844
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0712ea6313bc44f9ae8feb235c1b02c92cdd0527
commit r10-6437-g0712ea6313bc44f9ae8feb235c1b02c92cdd0527
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Cross-compiled s390x-redhat-linux gcc shows that the warning appears with
-mtune=z13, but not without it (using -O2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Created attachment 47778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47778=edit
original .i file
Attaching the original .i file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
We would need to see the original code (the translation unit) to tell for sure
why the warning is only issued on some targets and not on others, but the most
likely answer is that the code results in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #16 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > I think what matters is whether the new asm for those is the same or better
> > than before. If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93270
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I can live with that :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #7 from Adam Jackson ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> Well, zero-length arrays are a GNU C extension, but pre-C99 you could use
> pixels[1] and post-C99 you can use pixels[]. Is non of that an option?
The code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93577
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93580
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Adam Jackson from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> > It seems like the reporter might be conflating the forming of a past-the-end
> > pointer (what the GRABEXT macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93551
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
Adam Jackson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ajax at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93577
--- Comment #1 from Yongheng Chen ---
Stack dump:
---
tt.c: In function ‘main’:
tt.c:2:48: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘f’
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
2 | struct s { int x [ 16 == ( ( ( sizeof ( ( 3 , f ( ) > 1000 < 5000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93574
--- Comment #1 from Yongheng Chen ---
Stack dump:
---
tt.c:1:26: error: variable or field ‘y’ declared void
1 | struct s { struct { void y ;
| ^
tt.c: In function ‘main’:
tt.c:7:23: warning: implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
--- Comment #1 from Yongheng Chen ---
Stack dump:
---
tt.c:1:5: error: ‘f1’ declared as function returning a function
1 | int f1 ( char * p ) ( ) { int x ;
| ^~
tt.c: In function ‘f1’:
tt.c:4:9: warning: implicit declaration of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93572
--- Comment #1 from Yongheng Chen ---
Stack dump:
---
tt.c:3:4: error: expected ‘;’, identifier or ‘(’ before ‘short’
3 | } short main ( ) { int x ;
|^
tt.c: In function ‘h’:
tt.c:5:14: warning: comparison between pointer and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #6 from Yongheng Chen ---
I see. I will do it for future bugs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The full compiler output is useful. Some of us use it to quickly see what part
of the compiler is affected. It also helps make sure we're reproducing the
same problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79193
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 88999 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yongheng Chen from comment #3)
> It seems I overwrote Andrew Pinski's comment by mistake. Sorry about that LOL
I did not have any comment changes, only the addition of the error-recovery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88999
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93425
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91793
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92003
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93559
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93551
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoranni at terpmail dot
umd.edu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92625
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 92625, which changed state.
Bug 92625 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] Internal compiler error accessing
element in static constexpr char array in template class using alias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92625
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
This is about us not accepting the code anymore, I think it's what libXt relies
on. Quoting Adam J.:
"Where GRABEXT here is just doing the standard C trick for incrementing
past the current struct and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #3 from Yongheng Chen ---
It seems I overwrote Andrew Pinski's comment by mistake. Sorry about that LOL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92625
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93442
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] lambda |[8/9 Regression] lambda in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86917
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #2 from Yongheng Chen ---
Hi Martin,
I included the CMD line "gcc -o tmp poc.c" in the report but not the stack
dump. Is the stack dump necessary? I didn't include it because I think the POC
is enough to reproduce the problem and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86917
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1c9c9ff06ab15e697d5bac6ea6e5da2df840cf5
commit r10-6436-ga1c9c9ff06ab15e697d5bac6ea6e5da2df840cf5
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1c9c9ff06ab15e697d5bac6ea6e5da2df840cf5
commit r10-6436-ga1c9c9ff06ab15e697d5bac6ea6e5da2df840cf5
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Below is a simplified C test case. The warning is justified and works
correctly, but the index and the type it prints might be a little confusing.
The index corresponds to the MEM_REF offset which is set to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93583
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
a build without lto seems to succeed.
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at ubuntu dot com
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20200204 5124c34fcc62f0f880ae947542678e28aa2ce703 on
powerpc64le-linux-gnu.
during RTL pass: expand
../../src/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
Bug ID: 93582
Summary: -Warray-bounds gives error: array subscript 0 is
outside array bounds of struct E[1]
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #11 from Jim Wilson ---
I'm able to reproduce with the gcc-8-branch now. Maybe I made a mistake with
my earlier build. Anyways, it looks like it is going wrong here in the reload
dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93581
Bug ID: 93581
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_dataptr_offset, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6951
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
