https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109900
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Yes, let me do the folding.
FYI, for those floating point abs intrinsics, they're already implemented as
_mm512_abs_ps (__m512 __A)
{
return (__m512) _mm512_and_epi32 ((__m512i) __A,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109905
Bug ID: 109905
Summary: Missed misleading indentation with braces
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|pch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106545
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I see XTheadMemPair code has been added to peephole.md which is good to
have it away.
But again the first peephole is also handled differently already via
zero_extendsidi2_shifted which was added in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106545
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vineetg at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105702
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107587
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||development at jordi dot
vilar.cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107533
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106810
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108393
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107476
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107450
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced/simplified (using auto because I feel like it):
int i, j, k;
void f(auto){i++;}
void g(auto){j++;}
void h(auto){k++;}
void foo(auto&&...args1, auto&&... args2, auto&&... args3) {
(f(args1),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
The tune is added in PR62011
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helohe at bluewin dot ch
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107190
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55113=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #19 from Adelson Oliveira ---
Thank you all
Em qui., 18 de mai. de 2023 às 14:01, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> escreveu:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106810
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced down just this:
```
template
concept t = requires(a aa, b bb) { aa == bb; };
template
struct I {
using value_type = int;
using difference_type = int;
value_type& operator*() const;
I&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108321
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 107915 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107915
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108321
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Offloading doesn't work for 32-bit architectures, the offloading target needs
to have the same wordsize as the host and e.g. nvptx 32-bit support has been
deprecated and removed some years ago.
So, don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html
Specifically: "Please note that we did not create these binaries, nor do we
support them. If you have any problems installing them, please contact their
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #8 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu ---
So send me the link where I should get the binaries from.
Gary C. White, CWB(r)
Professor Emeritus
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology
10 Wagar
Colorado State
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gary.wh...@colostate.edu from comment #6)
> So using -ldl seems really quirky. Doesn't seem to work for generating
> 32-bit executables. Plus, not working at all on my second machine. Is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #6 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu ---
So using -ldl seems really quirky. Doesn't seem to work for generating 32-bit
executables. Plus, not working at all on my second machine. Is there a better
solution?
Gary C. White,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101807
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is what I have so far without the cost model:
/* Hand bool0 CMP bool1 because bitwise operators
are normally better than comparisons. */
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
&&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101807
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Actually I need to check the cost, e.g. on MIPS, there is an one instruction
> which does the less than without doing anything.
RISCV too ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101807
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually I need to check the cost, e.g. on MIPS, there is an one instruction
which does the less than without doing anything.
That is for:
bool f0(bool a, bool b)
{
return a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78798
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c072df1ab144506cd8bb0ac81fb8f1aad69f0bd2
commit r14-973-gc072df1ab144506cd8bb0ac81fb8f1aad69f0bd2
Author: Bernhard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109898
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #0)
> > --- gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Makefile.in 2022-08-19 10:09:52.280658631 +0200
> > +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109902
--- Comment #1 from Simon Farre ---
This is slightly off-topic, but still relevant to this discussion. In the
attachment,
we can see this line
" const auto res3 = b.set_foo (next_v ()).set_bar (next_v ()).set_baz (next_v
()).finalize ([]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #5 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu ---
I'm getting gfortran downloads from here:
https://github.com/brechtsanders/winlibs_mingw/releases
Gary C. White, CWB(r)
Professor Emeritus
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gary.wh...@colostate.edu from comment #3)
> Linking with -ldl fixed the issue Where is there documentation of -ldl?
-l says to link against a specified library in this case libdl; libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #3 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu ---
Linking with -ldl fixed the issue Where is there documentation of -ldl?
Gary C. White, CWB(r)
Professor Emeritus
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology
10 Wagar
Colorado
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109227
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
t;
> :) Since these failures occur erratically,
They did at the time for cris-elf (too), but I believe the cause of *those*
failures has been fixed.
> so maybe reopen this or open a
> new one if the failures are reproduced.
That's the idea. :)
> As two xtreme-header-5_ failures (not ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>--enable-offload-targets=nvptx-none
I suspect this might be the issue. offloading only works with targets that have
dlopen . Maybe you need to link with -ldl to get it working.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109904
Bug ID: 109904
Summary: linking with -static flag generates undefined
references
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109876
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109876
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109846
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f48c546902802cf640c4f2802543acfdc702404f
commit r13-7354-gf48c546902802cf640c4f2802543acfdc702404f
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109641
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:611be07e48956c8b7371eb580eef124990114fd3
commit r13-7353-g611be07e48956c8b7371eb580eef124990114fd3
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 18.05.2023 um 10:31 schrieb amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
>
> --- Comment #25 from Alexander Monakov ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109876
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=105826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109903
--- Comment #6 from Dimitri Gorokhovik ---
Thank you Andrew, I indeed see now the early-clobber effect of this code.
It isn't that we don't read documentation (we do time to time), rather our real
asm statement has more output ops and more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106902
--- Comment #26 from Alexander Monakov ---
> > Did you run into any of NON_LVALUE / C_MAYBE_CONST wrappings of the
> > multiplication btw?
>
> No, I'm not familiar with those, so I didn't try to construct corresponding
> testcases.
I had a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109891
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109903
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dimitri Gorokhovik from comment #4)
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I'd agree more with "WONTFIX" here ;-) We are not looking for solution. We
> want to spare the same hassle to others.
Why you didn't read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106900
--- Comment #9 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
All three target configurations reported a successful build. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 98821, which changed state.
Bug 98821 Summary: modules : c++tools configures with CC but code fragments
assume CXX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98821
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98821
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98821
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae5112f230f05e8a693931a44bf2fd20bef58f85
commit r11-10792-gae5112f230f05e8a693931a44bf2fd20bef58f85
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109891
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, if I'd typed PEDASSERT not PEDANTIC, it would be a deliberate choice ;-)
Yes, I think PEDASSERT fits better, based on the documented meaning of it
(which even mentions the std::string((const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109903
--- Comment #4 from Dimitri Gorokhovik ---
Hi Andrew,
I'd agree more with "WONTFIX" here ;-) We are not looking for solution. We want
to spare the same hassle to others.
This asm doesn't write to memory, it doesn't even read any -- 'a' is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109891
--- Comment #6 from Michel Morin ---
True. Detectable is not correct — that's "maybe-detectable" at most, and the
bug is not silent. In a code that I checked, the buggy code (`std::cout <<
NullCharPtr;`) is the last printing call to std::cout,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109903
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
One more thing, GCC does not look at the inline-asm template except while
outputting the assembly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109903
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is the inline-asm should be written as:
asm ("mrs %[_1], pmccntr_eli0\n"
"\tldr x1, [%[_2]]\n"
: [_1] "=" (v)
: [_2] "r" (a)
: "memory");
Note since a is memory address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
uot; 1
mrs %rax, pmccntr_eli0
ldr x1, [%rdi]
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
As one can see, in the "NO BUG" case, the registers allocated to reading "the
counter" and to reading "memory", are different, whereas they are one and the
same in the "BUG&quo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:120e444974e12eb727eea170a3bfd80783e3851f
commit r14-970-g120e444974e12eb727eea170a3bfd80783e3851f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e2fbe4f345f48ae3c8ba5bfbc1a7b783b398614
commit r14-969-g6e2fbe4f345f48ae3c8ba5bfbc1a7b783b398614
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95b93adcac69536bab617e045149719ec69099ae
commit r14-968-g95b93adcac69536bab617e045149719ec69099ae
Author: Michael Bäuerle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109896
--- Comment #7 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> With placement-new there's no allocation:
> https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/68e4PaeYz
Is the exception expected there, though?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109811
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
I got -fprofile-use builds working and with profile we peel the innermost loop
8 times which actually gets it off the hottest spot.
We get more slective on what to inline (do not inline cold calls) which may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109899
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(gdb) up
#1 0x00e5de6f in check_noexcept_r (tp=0x7fffa0a8,
walk_subtrees=0x7fff9f94)
at /home/mpolacek/src/gcc/gcc/cp/except.cc:1065
1065 gcc_assert (INDIRECT_TYPE_P (type));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109899
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106020
--- Comment #13 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks Andrew!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks. I tested the patch on jpegxl and it does not help there (I guess
becuase the redundancy there is partial). But it is cool we compile at least
the simplified testcase well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106465
--- Comment #5 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/618911.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108423
--- Comment #10 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/618911.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107557
--- Comment #10 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/618911.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109450
--- Comment #3 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/618911.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109882
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Submitted upstream as https://reviews.llvm.org/D150866
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109902
Bug ID: 109902
Summary: gcc/g++ emits wrong column number in DWARF
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109849
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 55110
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55110=edit
patch for the missed hoisting
For the testcase in comment#6 there is a missing code hoisting from PRE
which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107515
Stam Markianos-Wright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
On 18/05/23 12:01 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This mailing list is for automated email from our bugzilla database.
To report a bug, please don't email the list, use bugzilla as
documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ - thanks.
Note however, that GCC 9 is no longer supported by gcc.gnu.org,
This mailing list is for automated email from our bugzilla database.
To report a bug, please don't email the list, use bugzilla as
documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ - thanks.
Hello,
I encountered a security issue affecting gcc-arm-none-eabi-9, causing it to
produce ineffective stack protection. The issue is public as it was
described in a blog on May 2021
https://blog.inhq.net/posts/faulty-stack-canary-arm-systems/ by Christian
Reitter. However it was never reported
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
