https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121245
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> I thought that too about _InputIterator constraints, but it seems it's
> allowed by [container.reqmnts]/69:
>
> The behavior of certain container member functions and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120523
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/690676.html
Again sorry for the testcase failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121252
Bug ID: 121252
Summary: No way to return large _BitInt with gimpleFE
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121251
Bug ID: 121251
Summary: Shift and rotates with bitint on rhs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code, internal-improvement
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3120ebf3228fde693beaafd5dcbb2aa9dfb48f46
commit r14-11908-g3120ebf3228fde693beaafd5dcbb2aa9dfb48f46
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61803|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119382
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The flag wil help. But it isn't as permanent as you should like: it's not
really more than a side effect.
So it won't really vanquish the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108080
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120523
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am not sure this will work for all targets because TImode might not exist
> on them.
> Though I think that should be done and then limit the testcase to lp64 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120523
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61972
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61972&action=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #39 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #38)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #37)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36)
> > > Created attachment 61968 [details]
> > > Corrected third fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121250
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121250
Bug ID: 121250
Summary: Accepts invalid program containing function call via
member pointer to member in derived class during
constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121246
--- Comment #2 from Fred J. Tydeman ---
OK. Have installed that package.
This simple program (test183.c):
/* Done: dnf install libdfp_devel */
#define __STDC_WANT_DEC_FP__ 1
#define __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_DFP_EXT__ 1
#include
#include
int m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121249
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-25
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121249
Bug ID: 121249
Summary: build_constant_desc has some obvious dead code in it
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121248
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 14.3.0:
```
;; vect_yx_39.8_75 = vect_yx_33.7_77 >> shift_36;
(insn 38 33 39 (set (reg:V4SI 160)
(neg:V4SI (reg:V4SI 156))) "/app/example.cpp":36:8 -1
(nil))
```
GCC 15.1.0:
```
;; vect_yx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpalus+gcc at fastmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120577
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f0c68450871de6ea211748294c63c73e3e82748
commit r15-10067-g6f0c68450871de6ea211748294c63c73e3e82748
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121248
Bug ID: 121248
Summary: -ftree-slp-vectorize with ARM/NEON results in
different runtime outcome
Product: gcc
Version: 14.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #38 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #37)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36)
> > Created attachment 61968 [details]
> > Corrected third fix
> >
> > This one works.
>
> I checked the first fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120905
TCH changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61936|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120905
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120905
TCH changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #24 from TCH ---
And since GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120905
--- Comment #23 from TCH ---
Created attachment 61970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61970&action=edit
Fixes all of the errors of compiling GCC9 on Solaris 10 SPARC
GCC9 can be compiled with the same way, with the same cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #37 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36)
> Created attachment 61968 [details]
> Corrected third fix
>
> This one works.
I checked the first fix. With it on top of your last commit from Monday, July
21,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115800
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115800
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #8)
> Given powerpcle64 requires a minimum of power8, I'm not sure it is worth
> making libgfortran and libstdc++ build using --with-cpu=power5.
In the past,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
OK, the issue is that we currently don't represent trivial initialization at
all, so the initial placement new has no effect.
Then the trivial destructors are represented by clobbers, but constant
evaluati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121247
Bug ID: 121247
Summary: -fopenmp and -fopenacc can not be used together on
nvptx and g++. Nvidia's nvc++ can use both
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121246
Bug ID: 121246
Summary: dfp headers missing
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121245
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Note this relaxation only applies to container member functions.
InputIterator template parameter for _algorithms_ must be C++17 iterator as per
https://wg21.link/algorithms.requirements#4.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121245
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108080
--- Comment #19 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to ak from comment #18)
> How about just making it a warning and ignore? In most cases this is not
> fatal. The only exception would be options that are required for correctness.
>
> This patch f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61967|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108080
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #35 from Mikael Morin ---
The three patches fix the problem (or at least one of them) independently, and
I'm considering submitting all of them. I have to see what regresses with the
third one. And I have to find how to test: if on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #34 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 61967
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61967&action=edit
Third fix
This one regresses on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bounds_check_27.f90
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dependency_60.f90
FA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121245
Bug ID: 121245
Summary: __any_input_iterator should not support C++20
input_iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #33 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 61966
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61966&action=edit
Second fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-07-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121239
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba5a6787374dea3e90f09771134d16b9f6d2714e
commit r16-2519-gba5a6787374dea3e90f09771134d16b9f6d2714e
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121196
--- Comment #1 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Thank you again for the report, you input's are much appreciated.
I have already prepared a patch and posted in to libstdc++ mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2025-July/062778.html. Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121238
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #16 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Ah sorry, I was sure I posted the function before:
```
#include
struct S
{
constexpr S() = default;
constexpr S(int x) : s(x) {}
constexpr S(S&& x) : s(x.s) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121231
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
Yep, both forms should work..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121068
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #14)
Please provide complete testcases, this snippet isn't enough to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #28 from Filip Kastl ---
Created attachment 61965
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61965&action=edit
testcase 2 (reduced lbm, where the spill can be seen)
Ok, I think I have confirmed that there is a spill going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #20 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #19)
> (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #17)
> > > (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #16)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #56 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 61964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61964&action=edit
v19 more conservative proposal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #55 from Eric Botcazou ---
Following Olivier's message, we decided to go one step farther and to propose
further changes:
- The record types in System.C_Time are declared with both Convention C and
ranges for their components, whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121244
Bug ID: 121244
Summary: Wsfinae-incomplete very unhelpfull and probably false
positives
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121196
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119137
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121243
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think we merge the case labels w/o any way to recover coverage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #19 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #18)
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #16)
> > > Created attachment 61956 [details]
> > > I have jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121219
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2775feb7c7de9f21f79052e2b6a752a3eb08f07
commit r16-2511-ga2775feb7c7de9f21f79052e2b6a752a3eb08f07
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #32 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 61963
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61963&action=edit
First fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #18 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #17)
> (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 61956 [details]
> > I have just changed the order within the conditional where the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christoph Meullner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f888d5fbea1820ac75d84dfef0a974e578670394
commit r16-2510-gf888d5fbea1820ac75d84dfef0a974e578670394
Author: Christoph Müllner
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121182
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
A full patch, including testcases, was submitted to the list and updated in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-July/062585.html
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121243
Bug ID: 121243
Summary: [GCOV] [[fallthrough]] leads wrong cov for
case-statement.
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114445
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #3)
> sizeof(void*) is defined to match. It's a requirement of offloading that all
> basic types are the same, and structs are laid out the same, with the same
> endia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121214
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94f896c7c6c0329077271487219e345bcdcec6ab
commit r16-2502-g94f896c7c6c0329077271487219e345bcdcec6ab
Author: Stefan Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121242
Bug ID: 121242
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage for "break" inside
switch-structure.
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121240
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121231
--- Comment #6 from Gašper Ažman ---
Yeah, but shouldn't `{}` do zero-initialization?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
--- Comment #13 from Kishan Parmar ---
Big Endian Target
==
(insn 10 9 11 2 (set (reg:SI 124)
(and:SI (lshiftrt:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 129 [ x+-4 ]) 4) (const_int 12
[0xc]))
(const_int 3840 [0xf00]))) 246 {*rot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114445
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
sizeof(void*) is defined to match. It's a requirement of offloading that all
basic types are the same, and structs are laid out the same, with the same
endian and alignment, etc.
You only run into problems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
--- Comment #14 from Kishan Parmar ---
Little Endian
(insn 10 9 11 2 (set (reg:SI 124)
(and:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 128 [ x ]) 0)
(const_int 15728640 [0xf0]))) 200 {andsi3_mask}
(insn 12 11 13 2 (set (reg:SI 126)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121241
Bug ID: 121241
Summary: [GCOV] macro function leads to incorrect cov
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121240
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can't use section anchors due to merging at link time.
We can, you just have to make them a subsection, then you control the
unit of merging.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121240
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can't use section anchors due to merging at link time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121240
Bug ID: 121240
Summary: missing support for section anchors to FP or vector
constants
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizat
78 matches
Mail list logo
