https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |MOVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107539
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53837
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53837&action=edit
reduced further
Here is even more reduced testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107539
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the ICE only shows up with checking enabled. It is definitely a bug but
one which most users won't see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107539
--- Comment #1 from Franck Behaghel
---
Created attachment 53836
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53836&action=edit
main.cpp
reduced testcase :
g++ main.cpp
main.cpp: In lambda function:
main.cpp:222:61: internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107539
Bug ID: 107539
Summary: internal compiler error: same canonical type node for
different types
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Taken from https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55547#comment0 but I don't think
anybody ever reported it here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
Bug ID: 107538
Summary: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with
-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
>
> [...snip...]
>
> > As already noted above, new can't return null here, and there is no
> > dereference an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
Sergey Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107537
Bug ID: 107537
Summary: gcov skips throw/fallthrough annotations for 'never
executed' branches
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81036
--- Comment #2 from 。 <570070308 at qq dot com> ---
gcc 12.2 -fcall-saved-xmm0 not work too, target and host is x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107536
Bug ID: 107536
Summary: [12 regression] Wrong 'not referenced' warning on
renamed variable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
[...snip...]
> As already noted above, new can't return null here, and there is no
> dereference anyway. And the pointer isn't leaked, but it seems maybe the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55971
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55971
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ad2167bbac8ae83b1e91305b105ab5287bdac55
commit r13-3697-g3ad2167bbac8ae83b1e91305b105ab5287bdac55
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Wed Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106811
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 2 Nov 2022, nunoplopes at sapo dot pt wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106811
>
> Nuno Lopes changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-05
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105387
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107525
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105387
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b83f01d0057578ebc1785f858fbfd46cdc210560
commit r13-3696-gb83f01d0057578ebc1785f858fbfd46cdc210560
Author: Jakob Hasse <0xja...@u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107525
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c6008e75df80607f8104e665e0448a0a9cbf85a
commit r13-3695-g7c6008e75df80607f8104e665e0448a0a9cbf85a
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107514
--- Comment #3 from Janez Zemva ---
Created attachment 53833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53833&action=edit
example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
Helmut Grohne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helmut at subdivi dot de
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41041
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41041
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87b0935ed43d971a6eeebca963fb673628f138dd
commit r10-11071-g87b0935ed43d971a6eeebca963fb673628f138dd
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41041
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae31f6acb2cf9d43a265f42c12f95e4687ac1fa4
commit r11-10365-gae31f6acb2cf9d43a265f42c12f95e4687ac1fa4
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107535
Bug ID: 107535
Summary: Shouldn't -fvisibility=hidden hide C++17 inline static
variables?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41041
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1342c7f46e6e3f8f29d7971531a0af18cd8429bc
commit r12-8893-g1342c7f46e6e3f8f29d7971531a0af18cd8429bc
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41041
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e50ea3a42f058c14ee29327d5277ab0435e3d36b
commit r13-3694-ge50ea3a42f058c14ee29327d5277ab0435e3d36b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107516
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107514
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-05
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107503
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107499
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|12.0|13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107484
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107475
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107451
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107453
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107451
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Ideally it would have complained when we copied the pointer value in the
> trivial copy constructor and didn't zero out the original. That shallow copy
> wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107534
Bug ID: 107534
Summary: Analyzer should flag shallow copies of resources
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107453
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2022-10-31 00:00:00 |2022-11-5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107531
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Unsurprisingly, -fanalyzer doesn't say anything useful about this, because it
doesn't support C++. PR 94355 tracks some of that (and the meta-bug that it
blocks tracks more).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If we add a real bug (making a shallow copy of the object, which shares the
same heap pointer and then both destructors free the same one):
struct S {
S() { p = new int(); }
~S() { delete p; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
struct S {
S() { p = new int(); }
~S() { delete p; }
int* p = nullptr;
};
int main() {
S s;
}
Everything the analyzer says is wrong :-)
dest.C: In function ‘int main()’:
dest.C:9:1: war
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107531
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #0)
> Maybe adding something from -fsanitize=undefined would be an option?
There's nothing undefined in your example.
But if you actually allocate and free resources
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107531
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55157
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 53831
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53831&action=edit
solution improving MULT_EXPR range-ops
Another solution is just improving the MULT_EXPR range-op entry. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105929
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
--- Comment #20 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #19)
> I think it's just workaround that got installed in 2012, not a real fix.
> Of course, 10 years later one could ask if the workaround has become the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107533
Bug ID: 107533
Summary: Inefficient code sequence for fp16 testcase on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92999
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
63 matches
Mail list logo
