Dear Sir /Madam ,
Good day !
This is Mrs .chen from a trading company specializing in import. we have
been in this area for over 10 years , we are very interested in your products
.please send us your catalog , we will choose we need .
waiting for your reply .
Chen
At 2021-11-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104046
Bug ID: 104046
Summary: C++ compiler should forbid throw move-only type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101037
Pekka S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I don't even think llvm implements-ftrapping-math . Still not a gcc bug.
There is a bug request on changing the default already opened for gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I read that wrong. We have
Max. I suspect the issue is gcc has -ftrapping-math turned on by
default while clang does not.
Does -fno-trapping-math fix the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think gcc is correct and clang is wrong. Fmax treats Nan as missing data so
fmax is really just a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104045
Bug ID: 104045
Summary: [AArch64] combine related to insn fmaxnm
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 102074, which changed state.
Bug 102074 Summary: include/bits/atomic_timed_wait.h:215: possible missing
return ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102074
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102074
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84544
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
This detection is partially implemented in GCC 12 by the -Wdnagling-pointer:
$ cat pr49974.C && gcc -O -S -Wall pr49974.C
struct X { };
inline const X& f(const X& r) { return r; }
const X& g()
{
X x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90905
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
This still isn't diagnosed by GCC 12 even with its -Wuse-after-free and
-Wdangling-pointer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90906
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ranger infinite loop on a |ranger infinite loop on a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d6a0f388eb048f8d87f47af78f07b5ce513bfe6
commit r12-6606-g9d6a0f388eb048f8d87f47af78f07b5ce513bfe6
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6
commit r12-6605-g671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104044
Bug ID: 104044
Summary: Useless empty statements (across projects)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Weeks ---
Great, thanks!
--
Nathan
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 4:11 PM anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ooops, I meant AFFINITY clause in the message above, not ASSOCIATED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that the wrong-scope problem is introduced in gfc_finish_var_decl,
in this block of code:
/* Chain this decl to the pending declarations. Don't do pushdecl()
because this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I suspect they will fail if you default the linux compiler to
_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 then too. (I thought there was a configure option to do that
or maybe Debian/Ubuntu has patches for it I forget).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29401b7b4581e9131e7057e263dcea8b40a6b5ab
commit r12-6604-g29401b7b4581e9131e7057e263dcea8b40a6b5ab
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
--- Comment #18 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #17)
> Patch posted
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/588520.html
Applying patch locally fixes build of compiler-rt from llvm-13 for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||weeks at iastate dot edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27424f10d4ad28fbcceb1c9fc767605b4d46494c
commit r11-9463-g27424f10d4ad28fbcceb1c9fc767605b4d46494c
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103777
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bd2fd2840789909f6088d1c00d2efe9567293b4
commit r11-9462-g3bd2fd2840789909f6088d1c00d2efe9567293b4
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60679
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104043
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104043
Bug ID: 104043
Summary: Non-type template specialization with another type is
accepted but ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
erm, that is probably _FORTIFY_SOURCE from the command line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
FX, You might be able to force Darwin to use the non-checked versions (perhaps
by adding -D_USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL=0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103603
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104042
Bug ID: 104042
Summary: Four memcpy/memset analyzer failures on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
jyong at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please don't change the resolution to FIXED. There was no GCC bug, and so
nothing was fixed. The correct resolution is INVALID.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a script that's supposed to pick up those macro inconsistencies, I
wonder why it's not working.
The aliasing violation is real, we should use memset instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104032
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
bugzilla at cems dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93748
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #3)
> Are you sure about the "will not be used"? Bug 80055 is still open.
Right that bug should track putting those strings in the .pot which we really
should not be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93748
--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Since all 4 are internal compiler error, they will not be used for
> translation and the rules for diagnostic does not need to apply here.
Are you sure about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104041
Bug ID: 104041
Summary: static_assert failure triggered by non-selected
template specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
56 matches
Mail list logo
