https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That doesn't make sense. -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow also removes that
undefined behavior by defining what happens on signed integer overflow, one can
choose whether to get a non-fatal runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69274
Bug 69274 depends on bug 69689, which changed state.
Bug 69689 Summary: gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c FAILs with PR69274 fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69689
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69689
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68d525ee859041b21d87b23030d1e829a9cc3b6f
commit r10-10116-g68d525ee859041b21d87b23030d1e829a9cc3b6f
Author: Xionghu Luo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a87d7fbef55f72781905bffb298aab698fe6ed40
commit r11-8985-ga87d7fbef55f72781905bffb298aab698fe6ed40
Author: Xionghu Luo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102316
Tee KOBAYASHI changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xtkoba at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21496
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I think this testcase was fixed in two different ways.
First was by using dg-excess-errors for the testcase which was introduced by
r0-98409 to testcase.
And then fixed with r0-109419 for GCC 4.7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21132
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > >1. While working on this I noticed that genpreds treats
> >
> > Fixed/changed with r6-1344.
> >
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21132
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #13 from Bart Van Assche ---
Hi H.J. Lu, thank you for having taken a look. I would like to try your patch.
However, I'm not a gcc developer so I don't have a gcc tree checked out on my
development workstation. It may take some time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21132
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> >1. While working on this I noticed that genpreds treats
>
> Fixed/changed with r6-1344.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2015-May/420317.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21132
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>1. While working on this I noticed that genpreds treats
Fixed/changed with r6-1344.
I think that is the only ask in this bug report, is that correct?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102075
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102278
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Kubaj ---
Still the same issue:
/wrkdirs/usr/ports/lang/gcc12-devel/work/.build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/wrkdirs/usr/ports/lang/gcc12-devel/work/.build/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/powerpc-portbld-freebsd13.0/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
--- Comment #7 from Antoni ---
Since then, I found a workaround to fix the similar segfault in my other
feature.
It might work for solving this and goes like this:
instead of trying to access the rvalue when first replaying the asm, create an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91050
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dealer4587 at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12691
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #5 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 4:45 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
>> is it possible to make -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow work with -fwrapv?
>
> Why would it? they conflict.
This is a feature that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45881
--- Comment #3 from Jan Waclawek ---
Thanks for the comments and the link.
Small embedded is generally frowned upon. The proposal is characteristically
heavyweight and unwieldy.
Maybe in C5x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > -fno-strict-overflow maps directly to -fwrapv .
> >
> > If you want to use -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #2 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> -fno-strict-overflow maps directly to -fwrapv .
>
> If you want to use -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow, you can just remove
> both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fno-strict-overflow maps directly to -fwrapv .
If you want to use -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow, you can just remove both
-fno-strict-overflow -fwrapv. -fwrapv is implied for code later on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
Bug ID: 102317
Summary: signed integer overflow sanitizer cannot work well
with -fno-strict-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33451
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|inline-asm |target
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102287
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45881
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2763.pdf
It seems like they did not add this ...
But they do have _Bitwidthof now ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at mcfarlane dot name
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102295
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Note, we have other issues, consider:
> struct A
> {
> float a;
> int b[];
> };
>
> int x[4];
> struct A c = { 42.0f, { ++x[0], ++x[1], ++x[2], ++x[3] } };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102316
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like it is unrolling ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102316
Bug ID: 102316
Summary: Unexpected stringop-overflow Warnings on POWER CPU
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102287
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102311
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102311
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-13
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77565
--- Comment #5 from Michel Morin ---
Confirmed the fix. Will send a patch to ML.
> I had use -std=c++98
This comment helps me a lot to understand what's going on. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
--- Comment #7 from jyhgekyfbkjsyebf at protonmail dot ch ---
Note that:
* based on repro: if I add constexpr to the first ctor and provide body, it
will compile without error. Like this:
constexpr Matrix(double const ()[N][M]) {}
* based on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
That -ftrivial-auto-var-init places an initialization at the point of the
declaration is an implementation detail: there's no initializer in the testcase
itself, so it is valid C and C++ (spelling this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102211
--- Comment #10 from Jim Wilson ---
I attached a patch which is my proposed solution to the RISC-V backend. It
adds a new f_register_operand predicate and modifies patterns that use the f
constraint to use it instead of register_operand.
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102211
--- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 51456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51456=edit
proposed RISC-V backend solution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102315
Bug ID: 102315
Summary: ICE tree check: expected integer_cst, have save_expr
in gfc_trans_array_constructor_value, at
fortran/trans-array.c:2056
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102285
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |qinzhao at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102314
Bug ID: 102314
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in verify_ssa, at
tree-ssa.c:1076
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82314
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:104c05c5284b7822d770ee51a7d91946c7e56d50
commit r12-3500-g104c05c5284b7822d770ee51a7d91946c7e56d50
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102313
Bug ID: 102313
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_ascii_statement(): Bad
statement code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102312
Bug ID: 102312
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_dtype_rank_type, at
fortran/trans-types.c:1558
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85130
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d93ba93d3b13ac3d3c34404cad87732c809605b
commit r12-3499-g8d93ba93d3b13ac3d3c34404cad87732c809605b
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102311
Bug ID: 102311
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in
gfc_enforce_clean_symbol_state, at
fortran/symbol.c:4278
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102310
Bug ID: 102310
Summary: ICE in visit_ref_for_mod_analysis with OpenACC
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101574
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101574
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c79057fae6bbb36c4a4fd61c5b7107a16b71b17
commit r12-3498-g6c79057fae6bbb36c4a4fd61c5b7107a16b71b17
Author: Thomas Schwinge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102295
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, we have other issues, consider:
struct A
{
float a;
int b[];
};
int x[4];
struct A c = { 42.0f, { ++x[0], ++x[1], ++x[2], ++x[3] } };
When splitting the init into DECL_INITIAL constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102282
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102300
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-09-13 00:00:00 |
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101696
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101696
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ea292591e42aa4d52b4b7a00b86335bfd2e2e85
commit r12-3494-g8ea292591e42aa4d52b4b7a00b86335bfd2e2e85
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102309
Bug ID: 102309
Summary: thumb2-replicated-constant2.c fails on cortex-m7
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95958
Bug 95958 depends on bug 95969, which changed state.
Bug 95969 Summary: Use of __builtin_aarch64_im_lane_boundsi in AArch64
arm_neon.h interferes with gimple optimisation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95969
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95969
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95969
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03312cbd54f337dfb25be356a1d1abc9925c6c03
commit r12-3493-g03312cbd54f337dfb25be356a1d1abc9925c6c03
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49664
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e58de3ce00fc2385c9efb7faf321e0c601f0b0c
commit r12-3491-g9e58de3ce00fc2385c9efb7faf321e0c601f0b0c
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101904
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
--- Comment #4 from jyhgekyfbkjsyebf at protonmail dot ch ---
Created attachment 51453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51453=edit
GDB bt and bt full
Figured out how to run g++ through gdb. Breakpoint is set right on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101764
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102252
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:512b383534785f9fc021e700a1fdda86cf0f3fe7
commit r12-3490-g512b383534785f9fc021e700a1fdda86cf0f3fe7
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102308
Bug ID: 102308
Summary: False positive -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak when writing to
array in struct
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101764
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8b2b89358481d36755dbc99e585a251780453b0
commit r12-3488-gc8b2b89358481d36755dbc99e585a251780453b0
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
--- Comment #3 from jyhgekyfbkjsyebf at protonmail dot ch ---
Created attachment 51452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51452=edit
.s file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
--- Comment #2 from jyhgekyfbkjsyebf at protonmail dot ch ---
Created attachment 51451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51451=edit
.ii file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
--- Comment #1 from jyhgekyfbkjsyebf at protonmail dot ch ---
Created attachment 51450
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51450=edit
Compiler info and backtrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102307
Bug ID: 102307
Summary: internal compiler error: in reshape_init_r, at
cp/decl.c:6717
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102282
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102204
--- Comment #2 from Ye Luo ---
User code has been written in mostly 5.0 fashion as 4.5 has too many
restrictions. For most users, they only need a subset of 5.0 feature with
up-to-date compilers and fully implemented 5.0 is not expected.
Back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102204
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That isn't a made up restriction, but the OpenMP 4.5 standard (and older too)
explicitly requiring that
"A mappable type cannot contain virtual members."
OpenMP 5.0 doesn't have that restriction anymore,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101331
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101331
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90ac6edc3c0123b6cf975781f70c8517db84bd63
commit r12-3487-g90ac6edc3c0123b6cf975781f70c8517db84bd63
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98869
Ye Luo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101380
--- Comment #3 from puspmvqyfzxrbytwsu at niwghx dot com ---
Summary of the problem, as far as I understand it now:
The address sanitizer initialisation code invokes the mmap-syscall (syscall
0x9) with the following paramaters:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93011
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102281
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> But then we still cannot do the GIMPLE this way. It's a case where
> it is problematic to mark something as address-taken when some
> gimplification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102293
--- Comment #6 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Ok, thanks for confirming.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102293
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, please. It was fixed with the commit that belongs to the PR. Moreover,
there's one more boost ICE report that was also marked as duplicate of the
mentioned PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102293
--- Comment #4 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 100161 ***
This bug isn't about a warning but about an ICE. Are you positive this is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102305
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, Jakub!
Although this is a component=c++ bug, it also results in a libstdc++
regression, because we've been giving the wrong answer since starting to use
the intrinsic (e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sparc-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102281
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102281
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
