https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101712
Bug ID: 101712
Summary: Bad error message with reference to nested type.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||101521
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101713
Bug ID: 101713
Summary: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive with GNU
coreutils hash table code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36190
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |tree-optimization
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79355
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2017-02-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101692
--- Comment #7 from Eugene Zhiganov ---
(In reply to Eugene Zhiganov from comment #5)
> This rxMachines array is just for the purpose of holding references,
> since references in linked list are not counted at all by GC.
Maybe I am not right he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82905
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85560
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85560
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note clang is able to figure this is finite and able to remove the
loop even in C mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101660
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Submitted testsuite patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/576278.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86140
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #2 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101678
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101660
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101710
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you re-upload the zip file as it seems be corrupted?
Never mind, I was able to extract it, I had to use winrar rather than the
builtin unziper in windows or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101710
--- Comment #4 from steve02081504 ---
Created attachment 51235
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51235&action=edit
.ii file & .s file & output - Deflate64
Deflate64 zip added.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101710
--- Comment #5 from steve02081504 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Can you re-upload the zip file as it seems be corrupted?
>
> Never mind, I was able to extract it, I had to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101710
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Changing:
if
constexpr(type_info.has_attribute_helper()&&type_info.not_has_has_attribute_helper())
to:
if constexpr(type_info.template
has_attribute_helper()&&type_info.template
not_has_has_attribute_he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101710
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Changing:
> if
> constexpr(type_info.
> has_attribute_helper()&&type_info.
> not_has_has_attribute_helper())
>
> to:
> if constexpr(type_info.template
> has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101710
steve02081504 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> As long as nothing on the rtl level (combine) does not mess this up, it
> should produce the best code.
combine cannot ever create worse code than it had as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101714
Bug ID: 101714
Summary: [POWER] vec_min / vec_max handles NaN incorrectly when
evaluated at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99368
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89252
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 89252 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2019-10-3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
Bug ID: 101715
Summary: compiler ice when uses a GCC cross compiler to
canadian compile LLVM libc++
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91881
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source? It is most likely a known issue which
we just don't hit in our libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101716
Bug ID: 101716
Summary: lea does not have a zero_extend version of it
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2019-09-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pascal_cuoq at hotmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2020-12-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98709
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100046
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |bootstrap
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |libgcc
Last reconfirmed|2012-02-03 00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you attach the preprocessed source? It is most likely a known issue
> which we just don't hit in our libstdc++.
No problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51237
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51237&action=edit
Proeprocess.txt
Preprocess file.
command.txt contains my compilation toggles and error messages.
preprocess.txt is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14708
--- Comment #9 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
An update after all these years: As Joseph S. Myers said in the gcc-help list
in February 2005, "even -ffloat-store only deals with assignment, not casts":
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2005-Februa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78103
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f0c43e97825ee54e3779afbedcd0def12443001
commit r12-2656-g6f0c43e97825ee54e3779afbedcd0def12443001
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sun Aug 1 09:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #4 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
template struct {};
template
struct
{
& yyy(&& __str) noexcept((::value));
& assign(&& __str) noexcept((::value));
};
template & ::yyy(f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24847
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
these compiler reject this code:
GCC
MSVC
ICC
Only clang accepts the code.
All of the ones which reject it, all say the constructor is a copy constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19502
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Since GCC 8, we produce the error message 3 times rather than the 2 times.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33821
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-01-13 02:49:14 |2021-8-1
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40177
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC accept the original testcase now in C++20 mode since GCC 9+ and reject it
in C++98, C++11, C++14, and C++17 modes.
Clang also rejects it in < C++20 but with a decent error message:
:2:14: error: use of fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE with |[11/12 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meng at g dot clemson.edu
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101717
Bug ID: 101717
Summary: ICE capturing static member by ref within stateless
lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101717
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE capturing static member |ICE capturing static membe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #7 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|2014-05-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61103
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems fixed since GCC 7+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> It is caused by r12-1824.
It can't be as it was not backported to GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62274
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC, clang and MSVC all reject it with a similar error message.
ICC accepts it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35167
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.1.0
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63609
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is interesting.
GCC and MSVC reject it with the same ambiguous message.
clang and ICC accept it but clang prints 1 while ICC prints 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57678
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-09-08 00:00:00 |2021-8-1
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67426
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100952
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:960135b264a7724cf9c56acb6d85fb2d842a36e2
commit r11-8824-g960135b264a7724cf9c56acb6d85fb2d842a36e2
Author: Haochen Gui
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC and clang reject the code.
ICC and MSVC accepts the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71982
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems fixed in GCC 11+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60744
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC's tokenizer does not eat the token for DEBUG and inserts it still. maybe
eating it is the way to fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52998
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++ and C match up in GCC 6+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56427
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-07-25 00:00:00 |2021-8-1
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-02
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64178
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a bad interaction with an old extension really; one which I thought was
talking about removing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62274
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-04-16 00:00:00 |2021-8-1
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80679
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-05-08 00:00:00 |2021-8-1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80368
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems fixed in GCC 9+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84030
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-26 00:00:00 |2021-8-1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84196
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84984
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Seems fixed even in GCC 8.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85087
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-03-28 00:00:00 |2021-8-1
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29332
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51257
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0, 6.1.0, 7.1.0, 9.1.0
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51257
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo