https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97704
Bug ID: 97704
Summary: [11 Regression][concepts] Not working with explicit
types in function signatures?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96342
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abe93733a265f8a8b56dbdd307380f8c83dd3ab5
commit r11-4676-gabe93733a265f8a8b56dbdd307380f8c83dd3ab5
Author: Yang Yang
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96872
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Thank you; was fixed!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97705
Bug ID: 97705
Summary: [11 regression]
cc.c-torture/unsorted/dump-noaddr.c.*r.ira fails after
r11-4637
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95847
johannes.ziegenbalg at mailbox dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannes.ziegenba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95847
--- Comment #3 from johannes.ziegenbalg at mailbox dot org ---
I get the same bug with GCC 10.2.0 in one of my c++ test-cases.
I also tested GCC 11 (GNU Fortran (GCC) 11.0.0 20201029) with the attached file
and got the same result.
After a little
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97705
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried this on multiple systems and it looks like it may only fail on a BE
system.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97675
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97690
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97661
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97706
Bug ID: 97706
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE with LTO at -O3: verify_gimple
failed (incompatible types in 'PHI' argument 0)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97706
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97707
Bug ID: 97707
Summary: avx12 math function invoked even if
-mprefer-vector-width=256 specified
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97646
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97695
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
It is a clone materialization problem. IPA-CP clones f.part.0 twice and the
second time tree_function_versioning receives NULL tree_map.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97702
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The C front end doesn't have any kind of general lvalue-to-rvalue
conversion in the IR (other than for atomic lvalues where the code
required for such a conversion is more than a simple loa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97648
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84323
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e79ed391b9c636f087e6eb7e70f14963cd10ad
commit r11-4691-g93e79ed391b9c636f087e6eb7e70f14963cd10ad
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55394
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e79ed391b9c636f087e6eb7e70f14963cd10ad
commit r11-4691-g93e79ed391b9c636f087e6eb7e70f14963cd10ad
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #32 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e79ed391b9c636f087e6eb7e70f14963cd10ad
commit r11-4691-g93e79ed391b9c636f087e6eb7e70f14963cd10ad
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55394
Bug 55394 depends on bug 84323, which changed state.
Bug 84323 Summary: call_once uses TLS even when once_flag is set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84323
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84323
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
Bug 66146 depends on bug 84323, which changed state.
Bug 84323 Summary: call_once uses TLS even when once_flag is set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84323
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55394
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed for linux targets, not others though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97643
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97695
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
And the reason is not copying tree_map in cgraph_node::create_clone
(when called from clone_inlined_nodes). The following should fix it.
In theory we need a mechanism for create_virtual_clone to create_clone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97704
--- Comment #1 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
I forgot to add the error message:
```
: In instantiation of 'auto hard_error(t) [with t = int]':
:11:35: required by substitution of 'template requires
requires{hard_error({}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97645
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97363
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78209
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97698
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2058f5812bea3673859a68f9bfea61dbce6730f
commit r11-4692-ga2058f5812bea3673859a68f9bfea61dbce6730f
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39909
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97453
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed7f9957bbb5e899099e1ef0e5f6234c453ef7da
commit r11-4693-ged7f9957bbb5e899099e1ef0e5f6234c453ef7da
Author: kamlesh kumar
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54202
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97653
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-03
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97653
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
You need the patch that fixes PR libgcc/97543, which is another side of the
same coin. PR 97543 was about making long double default to 64-bits, PR 97643
is about making long double default to IEEE 128-bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
Bug ID: 97708
Summary: Inline asm does not use the local register asm
specified with register ... asm() as input
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #2 from Boris ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> "g" constraint won't work here:
So in that case gcc should fail the build. Which it does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Untested sketch of a solution for Solaris and BSDs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/557928.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97709
Bug ID: 97709
Summary: powerpc: ICE when building glibc with latest gcc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97663
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:875225301e356759982573d5578ed7ca54f81f86
commit r11-4695-g875225301e356759982573d5578ed7ca54f81f86
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
I see you have patch, too :)
However we do not want to copy clone info to every inline clone (since
the body is materialized just once). The problem is that in case the
offline copy is removed we move clone info to first inline clone and
reshape the tree. This is quite old code to save little mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97695
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I see you have patch, too :)
However we do not want to copy clone info to every inline clone (since
the body is materialized just once). The problem is that in case the
offline copy is removed we move clone in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97695
--- Comment #6 from Zhendong Su ---
Another repro for the same issue (as -fno-ipa-cp also avoids it):
[579] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
[580] % gcctk -O3 small.c; ./a.out
Aborted
[581] % gcctk -O3 -fno-ipa-cp small.c; ./a.out
[582] %
[582] %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97702
--- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker ---
Thank you for the explanation.
Interestingly, from the following list, the only example that
removes the cast is the last one (which seems correct
as ISO C specifies casts to produce a value with the
unquali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97559
Zhendong Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #7 from Boris ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I agree with Andrew here, the compiler does what it is asked to do, so puts
> the value into either memory or general purpose register. Neither "r" nor
> "g" allows putt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97695
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> I see you have patch, too :)
> However we do not want to copy clone info to every inline clone (since
> the body is materialized just once). The problem is that in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a00894a3a3eb2852cd782a9cc6ee5bd83bfff542
commit r10-8970-ga00894a3a3eb2852cd782a9cc6ee5bd83bfff542
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97710
Bug ID: 97710
Summary: Help with breaking change? cast point-to-member
address in template parameter list
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97702
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
T5 in that list is an lvalue, so it seems right not to drop qualifiers
there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is how GCC deals with all reloading, so I don't understand what is
surprising about it.
If you ask for something to be in register (or register class) xyz and it isn't
there, it is copied there.
Look at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97710
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97695
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab4664eb73f9401a5ca65d21cdf87d69fe0026dc
commit r11-4700-gab4664eb73f9401a5ca65d21cdf87d69fe0026dc
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90629
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97711
Bug ID: 97711
Summary: Failure to optimise "x & 1 ? x - 1 : x" to "x & -2"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97692
--- Comment #4 from ninos ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> aarch64-xilinx-linux-gfortran: command not found
> seems like user error.
I grep "command not found" and find more suspectible items, especially item
"19":
ac_cv_fc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97705
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97540
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e0aa43fc6ae689c595902310baec604e7e0d695
commit r11-4704-g2e0aa43fc6ae689c595902310baec604e7e0d695
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97532
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db8b3e148d5cc5358cd48886e5334bd50d2d3317
commit r11-4703-gdb8b3e148d5cc5358cd48886e5334bd50d2d3317
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97540
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97532
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #10 from Levy ---
Created attachment 49500
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49500&action=edit
Optimzation Patch for QI/HImode(32bit) and QI/HI/SImode(64bit)
Proposing second patch for QI/HImode(32bit) and QI/HI/SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #12 from Levy ---
(In reply to Kito Cheng from comment #11)
> > Two failed cases: shorten-memrefs-5.c & shorten-memrefs-6.c
>
> Seems like shorten_memrefs pass didn't handle zero_extend and sign_extend
> with memory.
>
> You can tak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97712
Bug ID: 97712
Summary: Attribute nodiscard in virtual methods is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
101 - 174 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
