https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:186fcf8b7a7c17a8a17466bc9149b3ca4ca9dd3e
commit r11-10037-g186fcf8b7a7c17a8a17466bc9149b3ca4ca9dd3e
Author: Kewen Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736
--- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
OK, so the fix is pretty straightforward; error_mark_node escapes through as a
return in ADDR_EXPR object size computations. I want to get a reproducer
independent of ubsan though so that it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you run this under the debugger to see where the crash is?
Because there have been almost no changes to the libgomp sources that would
effect this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105652
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=105734
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy R. ---
One workaround in the general case is
decltype(ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} << expr)) =
libassert_decomposer = ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} <<
expr);
But this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #7 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
I couldn't work on -fstrict-flex-arrays then, sorry. I do have it in my plan
for gcc 13, but I'll admit it's not on the very top of my list of things to do
this year. If you or anyone else needs a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105746
Bug ID: 105746
Summary: vector::resize causes Warray-bounds when
optimizer uses __builtin_memcpy or __builtin_memmove
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unexplained "undefined |[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90658
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9 Regression] ICE in |[9/10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:367740bf6d3a6627798b3955e5d85efc7549ef50
commit r13-787-g367740bf6d3a6627798b3955e5d85efc7549ef50
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105569
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105569
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f56efa94e845db0d5c934ca202295019bf334c1
commit r13-784-g6f56efa94e845db0d5c934ca202295019bf334c1
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745
Bug ID: 105745
Summary: Conditional OpenMP directive fails with GCC 12
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, and I didn't see this when building for msp430 because I used
--disable-libstdcxx-pch and that means the build doesn't depend on the
header.
I can now reproduce the build failure, and the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And it was indeed something I asked for, see r12-2355
c++: Don't hide narrowing errors in system headers
Jonathan pointed me at this issue where
constexpr unsigned f() { constexpr int n =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> possibly the system header diagnostic changes?
Yes, the narrowing check here was PR c++/57891 which was fixed for GCC 9. But
it was still allowed in system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681
--- Comment #5 from David Summers ---
Yes I can confirm that going back to gcc-11.2.0 - and it works again, that
being the only change. It explains how I got the headers, on my first build I
used 11.2.0; whilst it was building saw that gcc-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105571
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Simplified reproducer from Bug 105743:
See https://godbolt.org/z/xq16xac15.
```C++
void f(auto x) { x(0); }
void g() {
static constexpr auto h = [](...) { };
f([](auto x) { h(x); });
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105571
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105743
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
630-g3dff965cae6-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-powerpc64le
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220526 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105738
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> It could be clang/llvm miscompiling stage 2. Can you try with gcc as the
> original compiler?
Thanks for the suggestion. I did that, and the problem seems to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105729
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53039
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53039=edit
gcc13-pr105729.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105743
Bug ID: 105743
Summary: Bogus unused but set lambda warning
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy R. ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jeremy R. from comment #1)
> > More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
>
> The https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says to provide the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105729
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=105729
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is that fold_unary optimizes
conversion of (const struct Bar *) ((const struct Foo *) this)->data +
(sizetype) range_check (x)
to const struct Bar &
type into conversion of the lhs of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105639
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105742
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0, 11.2.0, 12.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105742
Bug ID: 105742
Summary: accepts-invalid non-dependent call to non-static
member function from unrelated class in presence of
dependent base
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741
--- Comment #3 from JFK ---
Any idea about how to work around this without the use of VA_OPT ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741
--- Comment #1 from JFK ---
Same problem with 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741
Bug ID: 105741
Summary: Wrong preprocessor parameter substitution with
##__VA_ARGS__.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
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=105727
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That may be true, but I think only the 1/2/4/8/16 sizes are interesting to
handle with special code.
And as the function is provably called by a function which can have any size
and through LTO can get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105727
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> No, see c#10.
I know it will work if BUILD_BUG call is removed. However the only
reason I can see why original author put it there is that he/she wanted
to write special case checkers for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96363
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96363
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97dc78d705a90c1ae83c78a7f2e24942cc3a6257
commit r13-779-g97dc78d705a90c1ae83c78a7f2e24942cc3a6257
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737
--- Comment #3 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
FWIW Ordered evaluation of elements in braced-init-list exists since C++11 (it
was not a part of P0145).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The call is added at:
#0 gimple_set_code (g=, code=GIMPLE_CALL) at
../../gcc/gimple.c:108
#1 0x00bceae1 in gimple_alloc (code=GIMPLE_CALL, num_ops=7) at
../../gcc/gimple.c:140
#2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
Bug ID: 105740
Summary: missed optimization switch transformation for
conditions with duplicate conditions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 53036
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53036=edit
update.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
Bug ID: 105739
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Miscompilation of Linux kernel
update.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 53035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53035=edit
Incomplete patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102218
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, wrong-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105738
Bug ID: 105738
Summary: asan error during bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incorrect evaluation order |[10/11 only] Incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105730
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105730
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105729
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105727
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> > To me it looked like a protection that size is not going to be large
> > (or perhaps author wants to add extra special cases as they are needed)
>
> No, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105727
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
> To me it looked like a protection that size is not going to be large
> (or perhaps author wants to add extra special cases as they are needed)
No, see c#10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105731
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The thumb1 rtx-costing function needs a complete rewrite along the lines and
style of the Thumb2 and Arm costing routines.
Another thing for my copious free time (TM).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737
Bug ID: 105737
Summary: Incorrect evaluation order in new expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-05-26
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47769
Bug 47769 depends on bug 105735, which changed state.
Bug 105735 Summary: GCC failed to reduce &= loop_inv in loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105735
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101991
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 105735 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105735
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736
Bug ID: 105736
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in force_gimple_operand_1, at
gimplify-me.cc:79 since r13-222-g28896b38fabce818
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105735
Bug ID: 105735
Summary: GCC failed to reduce &= loop_inv in loop.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jeremy R. from comment #1)
> More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T
The https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says to provide the testcase *here*
not only as a URL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105733
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
74 matches
Mail list logo
