https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Created attachment 48428
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48428=edit
avoid defining _IMove::operator() with a deduced return type
With this patch both of the above testcases successfully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93811
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94899
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
If I used (int)(0x8000) instead, I get the optimization which means GCC is
correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
Piotr Kubaj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.3.0 |10.0
--- Comment #25 from Piotr Kubaj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94899
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The problem is only with INT_MIN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Alan Modra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c3519218fb11bdde5356aec9fcac133b4988698
commit r9-8556-g0c3519218fb11bdde5356aec9fcac133b4988698
Author: Alan Modra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94073
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94899
Bug ID: 94899
Summary: Failure to optimize out add before compare
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94898
Bug ID: 94898
Summary: Failure to optimize compare plus sub of same operands
into compare
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94740
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff1e6276dd71fde59fde679557b5db1efca9f19c
commit r11-6-gff1e6276dd71fde59fde679557b5db1efca9f19c
Author: Peter Bergner
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Whoops, the above minimal testcase doesn't actually illustrate any bug, we just
correctly accept it in c++2a mode ever since r10-6519. Hmm...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Minimal testcase:
template
void foo();
struct t { int a; };
void bar()
{
foo();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
Leo Carreon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Leo Carreon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
--- Comment #6 from Leo Carreon ---
Thanks for your comments. I have realized what the issue is. It is to do with
local_time and local_days being defined in namespace date and std::chrono.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93802
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94897
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94897
Bug ID: 94897
Summary: range-for produces a variable initialiser with use of
a forward decl.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 48427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48427=edit
Update and extension of Steve's patch
I've updated Steve's patch to reflect current master before creating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94896
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Between 20200429 (27594524d8a93cddb197ad8c9d4075c5870f1473) and 20200430
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94842
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf9155914f0c2dac62c6abf1e45abb52a5a56e5b
commit r11-5-gbf9155914f0c2dac62c6abf1e45abb52a5a56e5b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94892
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
In that case, then, GCC is generating sub-optimal code for `(x >> 31) + 1`
alone since it optimises that to the same thing as LLVM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94740
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591d857164c37cd0bb96da2a293148e01f280e0f
commit r10-8080-g591d857164c37cd0bb96da2a293148e01f280e0f
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94895
Bug ID: 94895
Summary: ICE in expand_block_tm, at trans-mem.c:2643
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, trans-mem
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94877
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 23666.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94849
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94740
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66ec22b0d3feb96049283abe5c6c9a05ecef8b86
commit r11-4-g66ec22b0d3feb96049283abe5c6c9a05ecef8b86
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91529
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94867
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Further reduced:
struct FunctionBridger
{
template
FunctionBridger(T& func_)
{
T t(func_);
}
};
struct Function : FunctionBridger
{
template
Function( Ty&& func) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94894
Bug ID: 94894
Summary: Premature instantiation of conversion function
template during overload resolution
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #39 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I submitted a corrected 'final' reproducer, sorry about that. Was too tired
yesterday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #38 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48426
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48426=edit
Correct 'final' final reproducer
Indeed,
rt_data_t should have an additional
component
type(rt_data_t), pointer ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94893
Bug ID: 94893
Summary: Sign function not getting optimized to simple compare
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94892
Bug ID: 94892
Summary: (x >> 31) + 1 not getting narrowed to compare
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94395
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94687
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #37 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #36)
> Hm, I hope I didn't change the flavor of the bug, but you can cross-check
> with the very first reproducer which contains our code more or less
> unchanged
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #36 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Hm, I hope I didn't change the flavor of the bug, but you can cross-check with
the very first reproducer which contains our code more or less unchanged
(except for the build setup with autotools etc.).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #34)
> Created attachment 48411 [details]
> Final reproducer, less than 300 lines ;)
>
> This one should be sufficient. No further files or input is necessary, it
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94852
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94891
Bug ID: 94891
Summary: aarch64: there is no way to strip PAC from a return
address in c code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94763
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94881
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88443
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnd at linaro dot org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If I change your code to use date::local_time (as suggested by GCC 9) then it
compiles as expected with any recent version of GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 94881, which changed state.
Bug 94881 Summary: [10/11 Regression] incorrect Wstringop-overflow warning with
thread sanitizer since r10-5451-gef29b12cfbb4979a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94881
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94878
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* i?86-*-* |
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e72cfef362a98528bf3d199f127916c3dbef7727
commit r10-8079-ge72cfef362a98528bf3d199f127916c3dbef7727
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::local_time is new for GCC 10, so I would not expect the code to compile
with odler versions. I would also not expect std::chrono::local_time to work
with date::parse because date::parse probably only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] Template |[10 Regression] Template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b31ede6e376302047830691fe6249be3ade0a2c0
commit r11-1-gb31ede6e376302047830691fe6249be3ade0a2c0
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94448
--- Comment #2 from Diane Meirowitz ---
OK, I submitted this issue:
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/1236
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888
--- Comment #3 from zhangzhanli ---
So this is output from latest version of g++ ?
With Apple Clang, there is no such problem (recursive and segmentation fault).
MacOS Output:
jaly@Jalys-MBP gcccompared %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94827
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 Regression] crash on|crash on requires clause in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
process_init_constructor_record:
1743 if (DECL_SIZE (field) && integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (field))
1744 && !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (next))
1745 /* Don't add trivial initialization of an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89510
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] |[9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89510
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1983f4582bbe060b7da83578acb9ed653681fc8
commit r10-8076-gb1983f4582bbe060b7da83578acb9ed653681fc8
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Investigated it a bit.
It looks like with `-mavx2` the pcom pass decides to vectorize the loop, and it
then later gets mowed down into a `~`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94881
--- Comment #2 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I ran into another file that triggered this problem, reducing that one gave me
a slightly simpler test case:
struct a {
char b[8];
};
struct e {
unsigned c;
struct a d[2];
};
void i(struct e *e, void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94883
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94886
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94879
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94886
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:448c89d590455ed4ab7abc40309b5cf8ec52d13d
commit r10-8075-g448c89d590455ed4ab7abc40309b5cf8ec52d13d
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this goes wrong during combine, auto-inc-dec makes
(insn 29 6 7 2 (set (reg/f:DI 106)
(reg/f:DI 97)) "pr94873.c":11:48 -1
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 97)
(nil)))
(insn 7 29 8 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94883
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa94a22f5cb337e173d7119ffd5a92f1e607f544
commit r10-8074-gaa94a22f5cb337e173d7119ffd5a92f1e607f544
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
--- Comment #3 from Gooby ---
Meant to say NOT, excuse me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94879
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b16fd5fd8afe6f95c8ae44e759971e605c31f97b
commit r10-8073-gb16fd5fd8afe6f95c8ae44e759971e605c31f97b
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
--- Comment #2 from Gooby ---
Meant to say NOT, excuse me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94827
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Note to stage-1 me:
Jason wrote:
But I don't think that we need to keep saving the converted
current_template_parms; diagnostics could also normalize using NULL_TREE args.
And it looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94856
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544943.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
Bug ID: 94890
Summary: std::tuple({0}) fails to compile with
-std=c++2a
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94889
Bug ID: 94889
Summary: Negate function not getting optimised to negate call
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|Functional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94885
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94827
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 48425
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48425=edit
try instantiating the fn
This one ices with the initial patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94869
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It includes tons of std::lib headers:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#if !(__cplusplus >= 201402)
# include
#endif
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
AddressSanitizer:DEADLYSIGNAL
=
==198476==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-overflow on address 0x7ffc0eba4ff8 (pc
0x7f4eab1169b4 bp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94888
Bug ID: 94888
Summary: segment fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89510
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94887
Bug ID: 94887
Summary: -fdebug-types-section drops DW_TAG_formal_parameter
and DW_TAG_template_type_param
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
