https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90181
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Elliott M from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> > x86 doesn't support this either. It just happens to have a few register
> > classes that consist of a single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90181
--- Comment #11 from Elliott M ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> x86 doesn't support this either. It just happens to have a few register
> classes that consist of a single register, but only because of ISA
> constraints.
That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105356
Bug ID: 105356
Summary: Segfault in compiled program caused by premature
ternary clause evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105355
Bug ID: 105355
Summary: -msmall-data-limit= unexpectedly accepts a separate
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105352
--- Comment #3 from Dragorn421 ---
Ah, I was missing the g++ cross compiler, I see. Thanks :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Thomas Rodgers
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:977cbabeb1c1a9a28cc45655bdc693e1594642f0
commit r11-9931-g977cbabeb1c1a9a28cc45655bdc693e1594642f0
Author: Thomas W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Rodgers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c21556daf385fe9ece37319f574776dd7d8ab1c
commit r12-8231-g7c21556daf385fe9ece37319f574776dd7d8ab1c
Author: Thomas W Rodgers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Good point, I suppose this is better:
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
@@ -6315,7 +6315,9 @@ build_x_shufflevector (location_t loc, vec
*args,
if (processing_template_decl)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe, but for i <= 1 IMHO type_dependent_expression_p is right, that is why we
build_non_dependent_expr, c_build_shufflevector oesn't care about those exact
values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
My fix is just
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
@@ -6315,7 +6315,7 @@ build_x_shufflevector (location_t loc, vec
*args,
if (processing_template_decl)
{
for (unsigned i = 0; i <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105354
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105354
Bug ID: 105354
Summary: __builtin_shuffle for alignr generates suboptimal code
unless SSSE3 is enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|__builtin_shufflevector |__builtin_shufflevector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105353
Bug ID: 105353
Summary: __builtin_shufflevector with template parameter fails
to compile on GCC 12 but compiles on clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105321
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105321
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:afec66b054a7603ef394dc712ccbba37ae645fd9
commit r11-9930-gafec66b054a7603ef394dc712ccbba37ae645fd9
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105352
Dragorn421 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
Build|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97296
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97296
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47c74508116cb5959686b183374dfe97a5e4fb37
commit r11-9929-g47c74508116cb5959686b183374dfe97a5e4fb37
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #47 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7964ab6c364c410c34efe7ca2eba797d36525349
commit r12-8230-g7964ab6c364c410c34efe7ca2eba797d36525349
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #46 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:761dda57482295f9c41fcf87e5defa2ac1959f03
commit r12-8229-g761dda57482295f9c41fcf87e5defa2ac1959f03
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #45 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e72fbb6915c1dd1a52ecef55e10329e353cc3072
commit r12-8228-ge72fbb6915c1dd1a52ecef55e10329e353cc3072
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #44 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:89ca0fffa48b799b228beee48a16e26e24d8e199
commit r12-8227-g89ca0fffa48b799b228beee48a16e26e24d8e199
Author: Mikael Morin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105352
Bug ID: 105352
Summary: Building cross-compiler for host i686-w64-mingw32,
target mips32-elf, fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105351
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Are you sure it should be == 2?
Even clang is != 2.
The expressions inside requires is not a normal expression and all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105351
Bug ID: 105351
Summary: [concepts] Constraint checking does correctly match
static member attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105334
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Should be fixed now. Testcase for this and PR103623 forthcoming, leaving
this PR open until then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92785
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jman012345 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93256
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105334
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:493ae1a1680e2aebf394d8fe80faad745bc7
commit r12-8226-g493ae1a1680e2aebf394d8fe80faad745bc7
Author: Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105350
Bug ID: 105350
Summary: False constructor warning in case of [[depreacated]]
field in class
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
--- Comment #2 from Michael Steinberg ---
Created attachment 52851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52851=edit
Working modified partial specialization
After the related issue was pointed out, it too made me curious whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105304
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
Bug ID: 105349
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails
after r12-8221
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira ---
Qt workaround: https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/407217
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100070
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://wg21.link/p2408 is in this area, but doesn't touch the containers.
https://wg21.link/p1206 solves the problem, although it's not as convenient as
Barry asked for. You can construct a subrange
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348
Bug ID: 105348
Summary: Overly aggressive -Warray-bounds after conditional
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105347
Bug ID: 105347
Summary: Failed to build from source on FreeBSD 11.* due to
using nonexistent sha224.h
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86193
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104723
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > DSE can remove redundant load/store for TI, but not OI/XI.
DSE can remove redundant load/store for OI/XI just fine, just remove the last 7
from the string so that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104470
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error:|[10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104470
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104631
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52850
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52850=edit
gcc12-pr105338.patch
Full untested patch for everything but the predictable cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, in both the first and second function if_info->original_cost is smaller
than seq_cost of the new sequence, but in the first function
if_info->max_seq_cost is larger than seq_cost of the new sequence,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so at least for the 2nd function, the problem is that we reject it from
noce_try_cmove as well from noce_try_cmove_arith based on costs.
That is the case for the NEXT_PASS (pass_sink_code, false /*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100813
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc.jj 2022-04-13 15:42:39.0 +0200
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc 2022-04-22 14:18:27.347135185 +0200
@@ -3136,6 +3136,8 @@ ix86_expand_int_movcc (rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105346
Bug ID: 105346
Summary: -Wno-free-nonheap-object false positive (on
Bison-generated grammar code)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104470
Max changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||max.kan...@nu-cost.com
--- Comment #4 from Max
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105333
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE: |[10/11 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105333
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7092b7aea122a91824d048aeb23834cf1d19b1a1
commit r12-8224-g7092b7aea122a91824d048aeb23834cf1d19b1a1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Seems you are using the latest binutils ld, right?
It's the newly added warning which tells that usage of executable stack is a
potential security issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Before fwprop1, the code looks roughly the same except for the swapped
> > branches,
> > so in C
> > if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Before fwprop1, the code looks roughly the same except for the swapped
> branches,
> so in C
> if (tmp83 != 0)
> tmp82 = 5;
> else
> tmp82 = tmp83;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, if I change passes.def
NEXT_PASS (pass_sink_code, true /* unsplit edges */);
line
NEXT_PASS (pass_sink_code, false /* unsplit edges */);
I get back the 11.x code.
Before ce1 pass, in that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andysem from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> > > C(D = {});
> >
> > This requires checking whether C::D is default constructible, but we are
> > still in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105345
Bug ID: 105345
Summary: [OpenMP] Wrong iteration loop count when mixing signed
and unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #13 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> (In reply to Fedor Chelnokov from comment #7)
> > This struct definition:
> > ```
> > struct A {
> > struct B {
> > int i = 0;
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105344
Bug ID: 105344
Summary: std::source_location::curent() seemingly treated as a
pure function in template specializations
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is the same issue as PR 105314 really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ifcvt regression in |[12 Regression] ifcvt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
jiawei changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiawei at iscas dot ac.cn
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93256
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #12 from JC Liang ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> (In reply to Fedor Chelnokov from comment #7)
> > This struct definition:
> > ```
> > struct A {
> > struct B {
> > int i = 0;
> > B() {}
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93256
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82739
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |middle-end
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #11 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks a lot for the explanation!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105343
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
categorize_ctor_elements computes
(gdb) p num_nonzero_elements
$3 = 1000
(gdb) p num_unique_nonzero_elements
$4 = 1000
(gdb) p num_ctor_elements
$5 = 1000
(gdb) p complete_p
$6 = false
so it fails to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Fedor Chelnokov from comment #7)
> This struct definition:
> ```
> struct A {
> struct B {
> int i = 0;
> B() {}
This declares default constructor, meaning that the type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 88165, which changed state.
Bug 88165 Summary: error: default member initializer for 'A::B::m' required
before the end of its enclosing class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leanid.chaika at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
JC Liang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jcl at nvidia dot com
--- Comment #8 from JC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105325
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> where it no longer satisfies the predicate but does satisfy the constraint.
> It is unclear if there is any matching constraint for ds_form_mem_operand,
> maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105342
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, 570070308 at qq dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105342
>
> --- Comment #4 from 。 <570070308 at qq dot com> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105343
Bug ID: 105343
Summary: Inefficient initialisation in some kinds of structs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105335
--- Comment #3 from LIU Hao ---
Windows uses a full-width 32-bit exit status, but there is no standard
convention for them.
1. If a process has exited successfully, the status is zero. This matches
POSIX.
2. If a process has exited due to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105342
--- Comment #4 from 。 <570070308 at qq dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is it really important though?
The doc says that "The asm statement allows you to include assembly
instructions directly within C code. This may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105342
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Yes it is greater than a function call as it has to be a barrier to even
> memory which does NOT escape the function.
>
> Yes inlining does change it from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105342
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||inline-asm
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105342
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes it is greater than a function call as it has to be a barrier to even memory
which does NOT escape the function.
Yes inlining does change it from dealing with escaped memory to even local
ones. I doubt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Regression: jump or cmove |[12 Regression] Regression:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100810
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 105337 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105336
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Can you provide a testcase that exhibits such behavior?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
99 matches
Mail list logo
