https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115729
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
> rejects-valid
You meant accepts-invalid?
Anyway, constexpr makes it consistent, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115729
Bug ID: 115729
Summary: case label does not reduce to an integer constant
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
--- Comment #11 from Stas Sergeev ---
So if I understand correctly, before
your proposal the following code was
conforming:
template
struct B {
static constexpr int off = O();
};
struct A {
char a;
B<[]() static constexpr ->int {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
--- Comment #10 from Stas Sergeev ---
OMG, not what I intended to get. :(
All I need is to use offsetof() in templates.
Last time I started to use reinterpret_cast
for that, you disallowed reinterpret_cast in
constexpr context. Now this...
Why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
--- Comment #8 from Stas Sergeev ---
Added a few experts who can probably
answer that. While I do not doubt that
Andrew is right, I am sure having the
properly spelled explanation will help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
--- Comment #7 from Stas Sergeev ---
Also I verified your assumption in
comment #5 by this code:
struct A {
struct dummy {
static constexpr const int foo(const int off = offsetof(A, a)) { return
off; }
static constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Nope, lamdba's are not a nested class.
But according to this:
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n3337/expr.prim.lambda#3
The type of the lambda-expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> One more note, default argument clause does not apply here as the it is not
> an argument of a method of that class but rather a different context (the
> lamdba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111923
Bug ID: 111923
Summary: default argument is not treated as a complete-class
context of a class
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109824
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109824
--- Comment #1 from Stas Sergeev ---
Sorry, copied the output from wrong place.
The real error msg looks like this:
$ g++ -Wall -c a.cpp
a.cpp: In member function ‘less_aligned_a& t1::get_ref()’:
a.cpp:17:16: error: cannot bind packed field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109824
Bug ID: 109824
Summary: aligned attribute lost on first usage
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109217
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> -static-pie is now marked as the negative of -shared, so it works with that
> (the later cancelling out the earlier). It isn't handled that way for
> -static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109217
--- Comment #1 from Stas Sergeev ---
So as #7516 suggests, it is now indeed
rejected. :(
And at the same time clang has no problem
with that combination of options.
Please make that a valid option combination
again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109217
Bug ID: 109217
Summary: failure statically linking shared lib
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108538
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> It seems like you might be expecting more from -fpermissive than it actually
> provides. It only affects a very limited set of diagnostics, and isn't a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108538
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> It depends on the selected C++ standard. C++11 does not allow narrowing
> conversions unconditionally.
Yes, I am not disputing that.
But I used -fpermissive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108538
Bug ID: 108538
Summary: unexpected -Wnarrowing errors in -fpermissive mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107477
Bug ID: 107477
Summary: spurious -Wrestrict warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #18 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #5)
> And its running on a stack previously
> poisoned before pthread_cancel().
And the reason for that is because
the glibc in use is the one not built
with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
--- Comment #14 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> Please backport the patch also to gcc-10 branch.
9.4.0 fails for me on ubuntu-20.
8.5.0 also fails.
Please back-port to all possible
branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105936
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105936
Bug ID: 105936
Summary: internal compiler error: in move_insn, at
haifa-sched.c:5463
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #17 from Stas Sergeev ---
I sent the small patch-set here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220126191441.3380389-1-st...@yandex.ru/
but it is so far ignored by kernel developers.
Someone from this bugzilla should give me an
Ack or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #16 from Stas Sergeev ---
I think I'll propose to apply something like this to linux kernel:
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 6f3476dc7873..0549212a8dd6 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #15 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> Please report to upstream as well.
I'd like some guidance on how should that
be addressed, because that will allow to
specify the upstream.
I am not entirely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #13 from Stas Sergeev ---
Found another problem.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libsanitizer/asan/asan_posix.cpp#L53
The comment above that line talks about
SS_AUTODISARM, but the line itself does
not account for any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #11 from Stas Sergeev ---
The third bug here seems to be
that __asan_handle_no_return:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libsanitizer/asan/asan_rtl.cpp#L602
also calls sigaltstack() before
unpoisoning stacks. I believe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #9 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Please report the problem to upstream libsanitizer project:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues
I already did:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #7 from Stas Sergeev ---
Created attachment 52221
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52221=edit
test case
This is a reproducer for both problems.
$ cc -Wall -o bug -ggdb3 -fsanitize=address bug.c -O1
to see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev ---
I think the fix (of at least 1 problem here)
would be to move this line:
https://code.woboq.org/gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_thread.cc.html#109
upwards, before this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #5 from Stas Sergeev ---
Another problem here seems to be
that pthread_cancel() doesn't unpoison
the cancelled thread's stack.
This causes dtors to run on a
randomly poisoned stack, depending
on where the cancellation happened.
That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
Thread 3 "X ev" hit Breakpoint 4, __sanitizer::UnsetAlternateSignalStack () at
../../../../libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cpp:190
190 void UnsetAlternateSignalStack() {
(gdb) n
194
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #3 from Stas Sergeev ---
Why does it check for a redzone
on a non-leaf function? GetAltStackSize()
calls to a glibc's getconf and that
overwrites a canary.
Maybe it shouldn't use/check the redzone
on a non-leaf function?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stsp at users dot
sourceforge.net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104053
Bug ID: 104053
Summary: const variable not exported with O1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #7 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> -Wstrict-aliasing is kind of confusing in this regards since it's different
> from how other warnings with numerical levels work. Normally a higher
> numerical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #5 from Stas Sergeev ---
Note that this code example
is trivial. If the warning have
disappeared as a false-negative,
then I am surprised you close this
as NOTABUG, as there is definitely
something to fix or improve here.
Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Because GCC can optimize that pun+dereference pattern without _not_ breaking
Did you mean to say "without breaking the code"?
I will assume it is the case:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think you misunderstood what precise means in this context really.
> "Higher levels correspond to higher accuracy (fewer false positives). "
So was it a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
Bug ID: 103502
Summary: -Wstrict-aliasing=3 doesn't warn on what is documented
as UB
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896
--- Comment #9 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> you need to tell the compiler
> the asm can goto to that label.
Of course the one would wonder what else
could be done to the passed label. :)
Maybe some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29305
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stsp at users dot
sourceforge.net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896
--- Comment #8 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> It doesn't mean you can't use "r" (&),
Well, if not for Andrew telling exactly that
you can't, both here and in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> I think Andrew meant asm goto, which you haven't tried.
You are right.
Thanks for mentioning that.
But it doesn't work as well:
---
int main(void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
I can achieve similar results with this:
---
void cont(void) asm("_cont");
asm volatile (
"push %0\n"
"ret\n"
"_cont:\n"
::"r"(cont));
---
But this doesn't work if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896
--- Comment #3 from Stas Sergeev ---
I can't use inline-asm gotos because
I can't manipulate such a label in a portable way.
For example:
---
asm volatile (
"push $1f\n"
"ret\n"
"1:\n"
);
---
This won't work with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896
Bug ID: 98896
Summary: local label displaced with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #23 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #22)
> -S -fpreprocessed test.i will not work
It doesn't seem to support -fpreprocessed though.
Thanks for explanations and sorry about
naively attributing that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #21 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> It is just that clang doesn't support -g3 at all, as can be seen by clang
> not producing any .debug_macinfo nor .debug_macro sections.
So with -fdebug-macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #20 from Stas Sergeev ---
Ah, makes sense, thank you.
I was always wondering why under clang I
need to do "-fdebug-macro" for that (which
makes problems for gcc as being an unknown option).
But "clang -g3 -fdebug-macro -E -Wp,-P -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #18 from Stas Sergeev ---
IMHO the only thing that makes sense,
is whether or not this is useful in practice.
If there are no practical cases for current
"-g3 -P" behaviour, then to me the fact that
its documented that way, is more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #16 from Stas Sergeev ---
What do you think about, in addition
to your current patch, to also change
-P to disable debug?
Looks more user-friendly and clang-compatible?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #14 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Because without the -dD implicitly added for -g3 the -g3 option can't work
> as documented, in particular record the macros in the debug information.
> Because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #12 from Stas Sergeev ---
Will your patch also fix this:
$ cpp -g3 -P -xc -g0 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #10 from Stas Sergeev ---
Ah, cool, thanks.
Should this be re-opened?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #8 from Stas Sergeev ---
Thanks, but what will this patch do?
Will it allow the trailing -g0, or what?
For example if you implement -d0 or alike to undo
the effect of previously specified -dD, will this
still break the release
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #6 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Then they just make bad assumptions. You can do:
> cc -E -Wp,-P $CFLAGS -g0
> instead if you are sure CFLAGS don't include the -d[DMNIU] options nor e.g.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
Jakub, people use "cc -E -Wp,-P $CFLAGS" as a generic
preprocessor. $CFLAGS is needed to specify the includes,
but all other options do never affect -E.
But if CFLAGS contains -g3, you suddenly can't do that!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
Bug ID: 97989
Summary: -g3 somehow breaks -E
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee:
60 matches
Mail list logo
