https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96442
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6dd194e2ce201d057e4faaecc36d19e0d3695f57
commit r13-999-g6dd194e2ce201d057e4faaecc36d19e0d3695f57
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Tue Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105791
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4320bde42c6497b701e2e6b8f1c5069bed19818
commit r13-998-gc4320bde42c6497b701e2e6b8f1c5069bed19818
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Tue Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105782
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-07
Summary|incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105868
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the warning happens before the jump threading of:
[local count: 80530636]:
# buffer_57 = PHI
if (&_buffer == buffer_57)
goto ; [98.77%]
else
goto ; [1.23%]
[local count: 7954
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105868
Bug ID: 105868
Summary: false positive return-local-addr with goto statement
and optimization O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Mike Spertus from comment #3)
> Thanks for the nudge, Jason. I will shake the bit rot off the POC and try to
> polish it to something mergeable. OK if I ping you if I have questions?
Absolutely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105733
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Could this be backported to 10 + 11 please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105867
Bug ID: 105867
Summary: incorrect dangling-pointer warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841
--- Comment #3 from Mike Spertus ---
Thanks for the nudge, Jason. I will shake the bit rot off the POC and try to
polish it to something mergeable. OK if I ping you if I have questions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105852
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=100607
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=105866
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105864
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ivan Sorokin from comment #0)
> Currently storing a nullptr_t to memory causes 0 to be written to that
> memory. As there is no way to read this value back without invoking
> undefined behavio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105866
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|12.0|13.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105866
Bug ID: 105866
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in emit_move_insn building glibc
for MIPS
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53164
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:733a792a2b2e1662e738fa358b45a2720a8618a7
commit r13-995-g733a792a2b2e1662e738fa358b45a2720a8618a7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105848
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:733a792a2b2e1662e738fa358b45a2720a8618a7
commit r13-995-g733a792a2b2e1662e738fa358b45a2720a8618a7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105865
Bug ID: 105865
Summary: false positive expression static_cast
pointer-to-member upcast in constexpr constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845
--- Comment #2 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #1)
> I don't think this is a bug of libstdc++.
Well, it's not a bug, it's a feature request. But - I certainly won't bikeshed
about the choice of component.
> Perhaps y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The c standard was standardizing this already so we should follow that instead
of making something new.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105864
Bug ID: 105864
Summary: storing nullptr_t to memory should not generate any
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105856
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Roger makes an interesting comment about test case coverage in the C and C++
testsuite.
There are about 45,000 C test cases and about 19,000 C++ test cases.
This gives pretty good coverage in practice, wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103503
--- Comment #4 from H. Peter Anvin ---
The interrupt attribute typically does two things:
1. It changes the return instruction;
2. It marks all registers as saved.
2 is exactly the *opposite* of what I want; I would like to improve performance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863
Bug ID: 105863
Summary: RFE: __attribute__((incbin("file"))) or
__builtin_incbin("file")
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85751
--- Comment #2 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Goodness... I missed the question here.
The intent was to just take advantage of existing padding: the execution flow
should not go there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105862
Bug ID: 105862
Summary: missed inlining opportunity of
_Sp_counted_deleter::_M_destroy
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105844
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the fix we want is simply:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/numeric
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/numeric
@@ -68,6 +68,7 @@
#if __cplusplus >= 201402L
# include
# include
+# include
#endif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105852
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102168
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Like I said, this warning should never be used :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105844
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-06
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102168
--- Comment #6 from Peter Dimov ---
Yes, I suppose you're right. The warning warns that Derived _can be_ deleted
via Base*, and that's correct - if not very useful in practice in this specific
case.
In fact the private destructor case is even l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105849
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. the finalize> function is correct. The Clang warning is
saying "this class is not final, so the dynamic type might be different from
the static type" (in which case we would have UB) but that is not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102168
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But isn't the whole point of the warning to flag that "it is possible but
unsafe to delete an instance of a derived class through a pointer to the class
itself or base class." If it isn't intended to be de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105861
Bug ID: 105861
Summary: OpenMP target construct not properly privatizing C++
member variables
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105856
--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle ---
Patch proposed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596242.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105853
--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle ---
Patch proposed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596242.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105849
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Standard practice is to have virtual destructor in the presence of virtual
> functions.
Or a protected destructor, or to make the class final.
int_range ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105852
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105846
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105852
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
Bug ID: 105860
Summary: Miscompilation causing clobbered union contents
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105824
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102168
--- Comment #4 from Peter Dimov ---
Warning on a private destructor + a friend declaration makes sense, because a
private destructor implies that the type is not intended to be derived from.
But warning on a protected destructor + a friend does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105842
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105848
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105506
--- Comment #8 from Martin Storsjö ---
(In reply to Brecht Sanders from comment #7)
> So I guess the question that remains is: Where is -D__USE_MINGW_ACCES
> missing in the configuration of GCC 12?
>
> It would seem to me the answer lies in cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105840
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For a destructor we do a bit better, but it could still be improved.
struct A {
~A();
};
struct C {
~A();
};
105840.C:14:3: error: declaration of ‘~A’ as member of ‘C’
14 | ~A();
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right. The patch looks correct, but patches should be sent to the list, not
added to bugzilla:
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102168
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||81930
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102168
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The -Wnon-virtual-dtor warning is just dumb, that's why I added Clang's
-Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor which should be used instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105506
--- Comment #7 from Brecht Sanders
---
Thank you for sharing your insights.
I can confirm building with CFLAGS="-D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS" works.
So I guess the question that remains is: Where is -D__USE_MINGW_ACCES missing
in the configuration of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105855
--- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker ---
Clang seems to do a combined check before the loop without creating a new
version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105845
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from Jian
61 matches
Mail list logo
