https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph.h.garvin at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a-yee at u dot northwestern.edu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102767
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
The patch was posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582454.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102789
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
The proposed patch was tested and just posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582453.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102920
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102868
--- Comment #1 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582452.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79330
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102897
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102514
--- Comment #2 from jim x ---
It seems that they all do not obey [expr.new] p9, which says that
If the expression in a noptr-new-declarator is present, it is implicitly
converted to std::size_t. The expression is erroneous if:
- the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95375
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49111
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102238
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102921
--- Comment #1 from Frank Heckenbach ---
The following program, compiled with "-std=c++20" gives this error message; I
don't even understand what it's trying to tell me:
error: modification of '' is not a constant expression
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102921
Bug ID: 102921
Summary: error: modification of '' is not a constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102920
Bug ID: 102920
Summary: [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919
Bug ID: 102919
Summary: spurious -Wrestrict warning for sprintf into the same
member array as argument plus offset
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102918
Bug ID: 102918
Summary: Undefined behaviour in regex header (uininitialized
boolean)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Sandra checked in a large number of testcases for interoperability that were
broken from the outset on all platforms -- I saw them failing on multiple Linux
architectures, not just AIX. The testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
--- Comment #8 from Will Wray ---
The patch above doesn't address the secondary issue,
of ignored and unchecked nested designators:
C b {{.bogus="b"}};
Perhaps reshape_init should be recursed into once more?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
--- Comment #7 from Will Wray ---
The patch below fixes the main issue (I think, checking)
by adding first_initializer_p to the error condition
it errors only where designators are not allowed.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.c b/gcc/cp/decl.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> Previously the test case was unresolved because it referenced alloca without
> a declaration.
>
> char *adata = (char *) alloca (n);
>
> If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #6 from Darrell Wright ---
Right, mostly it can fall under as-if(if it wasn't explicitly disallowed) but
because it's observable it can lead to some interesting behaviour differences
when libstdc++ is compiled with gcc and clang.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Darrell Wright from comment #3)
> > Also http://eel.is/c++draft/library#constexpr.functions-1
> >
> > An issue is that it's high level observable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Darrell Wright from comment #3)
> Also http://eel.is/c++draft/library#constexpr.functions-1
>
> An issue is that it's high level observable and not just an optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #3 from Darrell Wright ---
Also http://eel.is/c++draft/library#constexpr.functions-1
An issue is that it's high level observable and not just an optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #2 from Darrell Wright ---
The constexpr value returned is different depending on the compiler. If one
uses clang and gcc this leads to an ODR issue as
void bar( ) {
if constexpr( foo<[]{ return std::sqrt( 4.0 ); }>( ) ) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102916
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> this can lead to ODR issues
I don't think it can the C++ standard allows a compiler to have an extended
const expressions IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102685
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 100970 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100970
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102685
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102917
Bug ID: 102917
Summary: [PDT] KIND and LEN type parameters shall not be
restricted to default integer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje.gcc at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102910
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 05:28:08AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> I think the following is better:
>
> #ifndef alloca
> #define alloca __builtin_alloca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102901
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=102916
Bug ID: 102916
Summary: cmath constexpr can lead to ODR violations/incorrect
results
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102915
Bug ID: 102915
Summary: GCC allows a trailing requires clause on a non
templated lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92435
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98821
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This warning only happens with checking turned on which is the default for
building off the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
Bug ID: 102914
Summary: spurious warnings are emitted on ARM about
non-delegitimized UNSPEC UNSPEC_TLS
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Duplicate of pr102685, fixed by r12-4452?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99183
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This seems to have been fixed between r12-4097 and r12-4638.
Duplicate of pr102745, fixed by r12-4464?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100970
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99183
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incompatible Runtime types |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102912
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102913
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102802
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92701
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This seems to have been fixed between r11-4933 and r11-6947 and back ported to
gcc10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102913
Bug ID: 102913
Summary: variant_construct_single should not remove the const
qualifier of Up
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
``
but its compilation in GCC results in a long error:
```
In file included from :2:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20211024/include/c++/12.0.0/variant: In
instantiation of 'constexpr std::__detail::__variant::_Variadic_union<_First,
_Rest ...>::_Variadic_union(std::in_place_index_t<_Np>, _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 __sanitizer::CheckFailed (
file=0xf7b17af4
"/export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp",
line=46,
cond=0xf7b17ac0 "((allocated_for_dlsym)) <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
As for r12-4638 the tests are now rejected whit
Error: The shape of component 'c' in the structure constructor at (1) differs
from the shape of the declared component for dimension 1 (2/1)
So this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102514
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, clang, GCC, ICC and MSVC all have the same behavior for the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102828
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102851
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Do you have the C++ preprocessed source that produces this mangled symbol?
The lambda part might be causing the difference between LLVM and GCC and such.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 102909, which changed state.
Bug 102909 Summary: Missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mytbk920423 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92701
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
71 matches
Mail list logo
