https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68313
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66606
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-08-19 00:00:00 |2021-8-5
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||5.5.0, 6.4.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mwarusz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80877
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This seems fixed in GCC 11+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101787
Bug ID: 101787
Summary: There's no document for cond_ashr/ashl/lshr which is
introduce by r10-2540
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomasz.jankowski at nokia dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78923
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bad error message about |[C++98/11/14] bad error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101505
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #5)
> Certainly works for -O3, but doesn't for -O3 -march=bdver2.
>
> during RTL pass: expand
> ./gcc.dg/vect/pr101505.c: In function ‘w7.simdclone.6’:
> ./gcc.dg/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101788
Bug ID: 101788
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in extract_bit_field_1 at
gcc/expmed.c:1857
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101788
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101626
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e3129b0caceec008a940aa5eada253cd0f0b3ec
commit r12-2755-g4e3129b0caceec008a940aa5eada253cd0f0b3ec
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79668
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101626
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2017-05-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101749
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91f8a7a34cf29ae7c465603a801326767f1cc7e9
commit r11-8828-g91f8a7a34cf29ae7c465603a801326767f1cc7e9
Author: Martin Liska
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101749
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bbaa64881715b8df2d717e418eeec7b7e974a22
commit r10-10020-g6bbaa64881715b8df2d717e418eeec7b7e974a22
Author: Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71653
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101749
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11e2ac8f75060d9be432e8db1f358298a75c98d4
commit r9-9661-g11e2ac8f75060d9be432e8db1f358298a75c98d4
Author: Martin Liska
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101749
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100114
Bug 100114 depends on bug 101749, which changed state.
Bug 101749 Summary: gcc -static-libasan broken because libasan.a needs
__cxa_guard_release in libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101749
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94162
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devgs at ukr dot net
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mingw32
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Keywords|accepts-inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Predelnik at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65396
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
The testcase from PR 93415 shows this can produce wrong code too:
template
void f (int);
template
void f (int) {}
template
void f (char) { __builtin_abort (); }
int main ()
{
f (0);
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53360
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81508
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49224
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101789
Bug ID: 101789
Summary: Fails to match (re-)declaration of member function of
class template when using an alias template for the
(dependent) return type
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69348
--- Comment #5 from David Friberg ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Friberg from comment #2)
> > Another similar but more common (/less contrived) example, rejects-valid
> > e.g. for GCC 10.1.0 for all C++ versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95937
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this does not ICE with -std=c++11 or -std=c++98 :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51260|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101779
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Binutils 2.37 has the fix for GCC PR 99935 included, so I suggest adding a
comment to that bug instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99935
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This patch breaks MinGW, see PR 101779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88694
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r11-88:
c++: Avoid inconsistency in lambda fn's this pointer name [pr94807]
* coroutines.cc (morph_fn_to_coro): Just check for
closure_identifier.
* pt.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68061
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This bug is still present on trunk when -fconcepts-ts is used, even in C++20
mode:
$ g++ -c 68061.C -std=c++20
$ g++ -c 68061.C -std=c++20 -fconcepts-ts
68061.C:3:1: error: two consecutive ‘[’ shall only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101779
--- Comment #3 from Eli Zaretskii ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Binutils 2.37 has the fix for GCC PR 99935 included, so I suggest adding a
> comment to that bug instead.
I see that you already reported the issue there (tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36961
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #11 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42329
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igodard at pacbell dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61504
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r245538:
PR c++/79533 - C++17 ICE with temporary cast to reference
* call.c (build_over_call): Conversion to a reference prevents copy
elision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62293
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101781
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The analyzer doesn't really support C++ yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is a C++ FE bug.
>
> This valid C++20 code:
>
> template concept foo = true;
>
> template requires foo
> [[nodiscard]]
> int bar(T) { return 1; }
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59790
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r262637 and r262639
[PR c++/86374] Name lookup failure in enclosing template
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00701.html
PR c++/86374
* pt.c (lookup_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66484
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, it was fixed by r259780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Well that's about the linkage of such entities, this is about whether they are
ill-formed.
The rule that makes this ill-formed was added by https://wg21.link/p1766r1 but
was approved as a defect report aga
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46589
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This code was made ill-formed by https://wg21.link/p1766r1 (new in C++20 but a
DR against previous standards).
So GCC should just reject it (maybe with a switch to allow the old behaviour).
See PR 97475.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe we should make this ill-formed for C++20, and a pedwarn otherwise, so
existing code continues to compile using previous standards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to KL from comment #0)
> Can you confirm it is the intended behavior?
See the documentation for -Wmissing-field-initializers.
It doesn't warn about members being uninitialized, it warns about t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101625
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69302
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r253266
PR c++/56973, DR 696 - capture constant variables only as needed.
* expr.c (mark_use): Split out from mark_rvalue_use and
mark_lvalue_use. Handle lambda capture of constant variables.
(m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101723
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1cdabe3aab817d95a8db00a8b5e9f6bcdea936f
commit r12-2762-gc1cdabe3aab817d95a8db00a8b5e9f6bcdea936f
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100613
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org|iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last re
vmovdqa 32(%rdi), %ymm1
vmovdqa %ymm0, (%rsi)
vmovdqa %ymm1, 32(%rsi)
vzeroupper
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE5670:
.size _Z5copy2RK10smart_pairRS_, .-_Z5copy2RK10smart_pairRS_
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20210805 (experimental) [master revis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16
.size memcpy_char, .-memcpy_char
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20210805 (experimental) [master revision
f7aa81892eb:82bfff3e5fa:c16f21c7cf97ce48967e42d3b5d22ea169a9c2c8]"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-skl-2 gcc]$
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 90773 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101787
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c04bb6d93f3bd009800cb99e56c779a69d832691
commit r12-2764-gc04bb6d93f3bd009800cb99e56c779a69d832691
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101790
Bug ID: 101790
Summary: ICE on invalid regression in trunk: tree check:
expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101787
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72264a639729a5dcc21dbee304717ce22b338bfd
commit r12-2765-g72264a639729a5dcc21dbee304717ce22b338bfd
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Jul 17 07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
--- Comment #4 from Anders Granlund ---
Sounds good to me!
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, 13:35 redi at gcc dot gnu.org,
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97475
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Maybe we should make this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101790
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE on invalid regression |[12 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b1de3eb9ed3f8dde54732d88520292c5ad1157d
commit r12-2766-g7b1de3eb9ed3f8dde54732d88520292c5ad1157d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101780
--- Comment #2 from KL ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Thanks,
I thought that this warning is fine if it helps to assure the developer that
everything is still under control: that if the analyzer sees that a field is
left uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101786
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101786
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMHO clang++ implements it incorrectly, if you compile the testcase I've added
in the patch with clang, then it will properly use _ZTH for the 4th variable
(as it has non-trivial dtor, that dtor needs to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372
--- Comment #5 from Marc C. Steinbach ---
Thanks for fixing!
I was unable to install any development snapshots,
so I waited for the 11.2.0 release to test my codes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101770
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88736
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Summary|nullptr_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82204
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r11-3699:
c++: block-scope externs get an alias [PR95677,PR31775,PR95677]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61543
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> GCC 8+ rejects the first "// accepted" in the reduced testcase.
Since r249083
> GCC 9+ rejects both.
Since approximately r267272
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The core issue is still open, for some reason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100977
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4805b92a32637b987f924463d6af9dcf95b21f63
commit r12-2771-g4805b92a32637b987f924463d6af9dcf95b21f63
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100977
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4739344d36e6d24764cbedde44a3fff6edc70f6c
commit r12-2772-g4739344d36e6d24764cbedde44a3fff6edc70f6c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71267
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Accepted since r12-1094 and r11-8714:
c++: argument pack with expansion [PR86355]
This testcase revealed that we were using PACK_EXPANSION_EXTRA_ARGS a lot
more than necessary; use_pack_expansion_extra_ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101791
Bug ID: 101791
Summary: missing warning on a mismatch between scalar and array
forms of new and delete
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101791
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Blocks|
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
