https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115426
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4bbdec2be1c9f8fb49276b8a54ee86024ceac17
commit r15-1837-ga4bbdec2be1c9f8fb49276b8a54ee86024ceac17
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 115533 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
Bug 68331 depends on bug 115533, which changed state.
Bug 115533 Summary: [12/13/14/15 regression] flac miscompiled with -O3
-march=znver2 -fipa-pta -fno-vect-cost-model since r12-3893-g6390c5047adb75
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115533
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #23)
> I suggest it to close this a dup of PR 106902 if there are no better ideas.
>
> By the way, in both cases SLP introduces vectors in a loop where scalar
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115748
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:699087a16591adfdf21228876b6c48dbcd353faa
commit r15-1836-g699087a16591adfdf21228876b6c48dbcd353faa
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
Ignacy Gawędzki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64 x86_64
--- Comment #3 from Ig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109828
Campbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rlcamp.pdx at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC loses track of value on |[11/12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115750
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Many thanks Dave!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #19 from Giuliano Belinassi
---
> A formal patch had been sent out as URL field shows, still waiting for review.
I am using this patch on libpulp (userspace livepatching) and I found no issues
so far. I think this is safe to be com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113116
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks fixed since https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/49489 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 114481, which changed state.
Bug 114481 Summary: 14% exec time slowdown of 433.milc on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114481
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114656
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 114656, which changed state.
Bug 114656 Summary: [15 Regression] ~5% slowdown of 538.imagick_r on aarch64
since r14-9692
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114656
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 115463, which changed state.
Bug 115463 Summary: [15 regression] 526.blender_r regressed 5% on Zen2 with
-Ofast -flto -march=native since r15-1058-gc989e59fc99d99
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115463
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112915
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks like it was fixed in Jan 2024 around between 02948ced062b730e and
7f7d9c525c694e36 revision (https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/44304).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101232
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115775
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115753
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1eeafe40f263acdb5eb1b57f777e064a11ced2b
commit r15-1830-gd1eeafe40f263acdb5eb1b57f777e064a11ced2b
Author: Hu, Lin1
Date: Wed Jul 3 10:07:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115706
--- Comment #2 from Dev Dude ---
Just to clarify the initial comment if it is unclear:
It's unclear how to compile C++ standard headers. If I use the script below to
try to build all the standard c++ headers, I see the "random" header errors an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109224
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
(In reply to Brian Bi from comment #1)
> I'm also encountering this issue, and I can't find any way to write the code
> that avoids triggering the warning, so I will simply have to disable the
> warning until this issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-03
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115778
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
11 vs 12:
```
--- /dev/fd/63 2024-07-03 22:38:09.929726424 +0100
+++ /dev/fd/62 2024-07-03 22:38:09.932726456 +0100
@@ -5,24 +5,28 @@
insertion_sort.constprop.0:
.LFB25:
.cfi_startproc
- leaq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115778
--- Comment #1 from Sean Murthy ---
Created attachment 58587
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58587&action=edit
Compiler output from Compiler Explorer (link in initial report)
I am unable to generate pre-processed file becau
, but reporting it
because the compiler output asks to, and I don't this issue in the bug
database.
--version outputs:
"g++
(Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-751982484b50f3fcf54235683fb4c76dd6426d92-binutils-2.42)
15.0.0 20240703 (experimental)"
The same code has no error in GCC 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115777
Bug ID: 115777
Summary: Severe performance regression on insertion sort at -O2
or above
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #9)
> Note that the POSIX list might not be redistributable, and the stuff in
> glibc is probably under the GFDL rather than the GPL. Using glibc's is
> probably the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110356
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115776
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|13.3.1 |15.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115776
Bug ID: 115776
Summary: [C++26] Implement P2757R3 Type checking format args
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110356
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115775
--- Comment #1 from Sean Murthy ---
Created attachment 58585
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58585&action=edit
Compiler output for the repro
Generated with GCC 14.1 with the following command line:
g++ -v -save-temps -std=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109224
Brian Bi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bbi5291 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115775
Bug ID: 115775
Summary: User-defined deduction guide ignored for alias
template if the alias passes on a template template
parameter to the aliased class template
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW I just noticed that your reproducer is wrong (I think) whilst trying to
implement sigaction: if you're going to use sa_sigaction for the function
pointer (rather than sa_handler), you have to set the S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101232
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Let me try whip up a proof of concept for the parsing then we can go from
there. Thank you for the help so far!
(Ah, good catch wrt sigaction -- I noticed something funny when testing but I
didn't clock it pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115750
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> Hi David, I started hacking up a list based on the man pages I had from
> `man-pages` & removing the POSIX list of safe functions, but it's kind of
> gross. It's not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115735
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Not only are we not treating "syslog" as unsafe, we're also failing to handle
sigaction as a way of setting a signal handler. I'm taking a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115774
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115774
Bug ID: 115774
Summary: GDb does not work in Centos 9 Stream
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115691
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115691
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by John David Anglin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce713016fb50796e906e39ba4244fbaf47ae77a9
commit r11-11555-gce713016fb50796e906e39ba4244fbaf47ae77a9
Author: John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115691
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by John David Anglin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c98d9479cec88148eb3be8d0098e36bce061cd6
commit r12-10597-g0c98d9479cec88148eb3be8d0098e36bce061cd6
Author: John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115691
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by John David Anglin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ecd6ebe5fb0151f9649705a5798325032bbc811a
commit r13--gecd6ebe5fb0151f9649705a5798325032bbc811a
Author: John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115691
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by John David Anglin
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:acde9f81da39450b90e12ccf937d35aa8da1b478
commit r14-10375-gacde9f81da39450b90e12ccf937d35aa8da1b478
Author: John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Manuel Köppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Manuel Köppen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #7 from biggs at biggs dot xyz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> For C++ (well with GCC extensions obvious) this would be valid:
> ```
> static constexpr const char *names[] = {
> [CE_RED] = "RED",
> [CE_GREEN]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to biggs from comment #5)
> So the argument here is that C23's constexpr does not permit this
> optimization because it does not allow constexpr pointers other than nullptr?
No I am saying the fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #9 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
Here I am providing some benchmark results to back up my claim that switching
to the integer modulo by a constant algorithm with 2 multiplication
instructions (which is the default in both Clan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #5 from biggs at biggs dot xyz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to biggs from comment #3)
> >
> > The unused names are optimized out here and string_view is simply a
> > contiguous array of characters not p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to biggs from comment #3)
>
> The unused names are optimized out here and string_view is simply a
> contiguous array of characters not pointers.
Nope, it is still an array of pointers (and length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b7f203472d07a05d959a29638c7c95d98bf0c1c
commit r15-1826-g7b7f203472d07a05d959a29638c7c95d98bf0c1c
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103732
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> >constexpr int y = s0.C;
>
>
> The above is now valid due to https://wg21.link/p2280r2 (which was acecpted
> as a defect report against all C++ version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72756
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the paper that was acepted in the end is https://wg21.link/p2280 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105696
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> https://wg21.link/p2280r2 was accepted as a defect report against all
> versions of C++.
Note the correct link is https://wg21.link/p2280 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Manuel Köppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Manuel Köppen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103732
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>constexpr int y = s0.C;
The above is now valid due to https://wg21.link/p2280r2 (which was acecpted as
a defect report against all C++ versions).
>constexpr int z = a[i]->C;
I think this is inva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #3 from biggs at biggs dot xyz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >The unused constexpr names aren't optimized out but the const*const ones are.
>
>
> They are different.
> In the constexpr case, you have an array of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72756
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115773
Bug ID: 115773
Summary: gcc crashed with a init-capture which introduces a
pack inside another lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For C++ (well with GCC extensions obvious) this would be valid:
```
static constexpr const char *names[] = {
[CE_RED] = "RED",
[CE_GREEN] = "GREEN",
[CE_BLUE] = "BLUE",
};
```
And gets optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Shun.Yao at de dot bosch.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 115772, which changed state.
Bug 115772 Summary: static_assert rejected constexpr member function with
non-constexpr this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.2|14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115763
--- Comment #5 from Li Pan ---
The second test may still have some problem, will double check about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #13 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> > > > Reduced more:
> > > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115763
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de9254e224eb3d89303cb9b3ba50b4c479c55f7c
commit r15-1822-gde9254e224eb3d89303cb9b3ba50b4c479c55f7c
Author: Pan Li
Date: Wed Jul 3 22:06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2280r4.html
change was approved by the C++ committee as a defect report for older
standards, so this change is expected to apply to C++17. So n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115533
--- Comment #23 from Alexander Monakov ---
I suggest it to close this a dup of PR 106902 if there are no better ideas.
By the way, in both cases SLP introduces vectors in a loop where scalar
computations it's attempting to replace are not elimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115755
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #1)
> mulx doesn't support imm operand, a register is still needed to put 123.
> mulq is used func/func1 should be ok.
Right, but mulx does not set the flags so it shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #17)
> But does that apply to classes, templates or template specialization, etc.?
Yes, everything that you would define in a header.
> If someone writes a function=dele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the testcase needs:
```
#include
```
for newer gcc versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115736
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Indeed.
Is "puts" safe or unsafe to call from a signal handler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> > > Reduced more:
> > >
> > > long double
> > > test (long double xx)
> > > {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #11 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> > Reduced more:
> >
> > long double
> > test (long double xx)
> > {
> >__asm ("" :: "f"(xx));
> >return xx + 1;
> > }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Bug ID: 115772
Summary: static_assert does not accept constexpr member
function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #10 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #2)
>
> > On LA, if mode is TFmode and regno is the number of the floating-point
> > register, can this hook return true, or must i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
Bug ID: 115771
Summary: false postiv -Wstringop-overread with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #2)
> On LA, if mode is TFmode and regno is the number of the floating-point
> register, can this hook return true, or must it return false?
To me it can return true, but th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Started from r13-1834 (which removed movtf).
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
