https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114130
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
I think it's more interesting why
* 119: [r216:SI (2 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] =
{r0:SI..r3:SI}
isn't considered as dependence? Why does the earlier insn even come into
play? What's the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Front-end optimization |Front-end optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #11 from lin1.hu at intel dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> That that GCC doesn't promise that -ftrapv preserves all overflows and
> traps, it merely guarantees that all overflows that actually happen trap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #12 from Hu Lin ---
(In reply to Hu Lin from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > That that GCC doesn't promise that -ftrapv preserves all overflows and
> > traps, it merely guarantees that all overflows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao ---
And IIRC there are various suggestion saying "if you want -fwrapv, you are
likely actually wanting -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow" and some plan
deprecating -fwrapv. So it's more important to fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114701
Bug ID: 114701
Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
EFT Payment - See attachment.
Regards,
Accounts team
p: 07 3622 3988 | f: 07 3622 3889
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114130
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb68221c59e8f98e107bb5842d319bee3a66b8dc
commit r11-11317-gcb68221c59e8f98e107bb5842d319bee3a66b8dc
Author: Kito Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #14 from Hu Lin ---
Created attachment 57933
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57933=edit
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114687
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9e94ae448ba309dba74de3ee1974a3ed9248889
commit r14-9933-gc9e94ae448ba309dba74de3ee1974a3ed9248889
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #24 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
> Maybe easier to understand testcase:
>
> with -O3 -msse4.1 -fno-vect-cost-model we return 20 instead of 8. Adding
> -fdisable-tree-cunroll avoids the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114695
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Piquet ---
Interesting. Now I think the issue may actually be caused by pack expansion on
the call site. The issue also happens when Foo only has one base class, albeit
with a different error that at least has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Nevertheless it's better for clarity to parentize >> inside |.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114701
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But guess that won't shut up cppcheck, I'd think it wants | (!!sticky) instead
of
| !!sticky. Haven't tried though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #27)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #26)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> > > I think it's more interesting why
> > >
> > > *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
I think that adjusting an existing upper bound by -1 because of gap peeling
is wrong when that upper bound may not apply to the IV exit. Because gap
peeling only affects the IV exit test and not the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Ok, done in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/649367.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114696
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> The code in comment#0 compiles at r14-9893-gded646c91d2c0f
> and gives the indicated results.
which is the commit:
Fortran: fix argument checking of intrinsics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #26 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> I think it's more interesting why
>
> * 119: [r216:SI (2 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] =
> {r0:SI..r3:SI}
>
> isn't considered as dependence?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #27 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #26)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> > I think it's more interesting why
> >
> > * 119: [r216:SI (2 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114687
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE: in |[13 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114695
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Piquet ---
Note that MSVC latest now also fails this last sample regardless of the
language version (but the error differs from C++17 to C++20). Clang (>= 5.0.0)
still happily accepts it, on both versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually I had another look.
Jason said in the c++: fix in-charge parm in constexpr mail back in December
(as well as in the r14-6507 commit message):
"Since a class with vbases can't have constexpr 'tors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe easier to understand testcase:
long x[9];
long a[20];
struct { long x; long b[40]; } b;
int __attribute__((noipa))
foo (int n)
{
int i = 0;
int k = 0;
do
{
if (x[k++]) // early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Hu Lin from comment #11)
> I think it doesn't mean that's not a bug with -ftrapv, it should preserve
> all overflow traps. Because it doesn't work, we use -fsanitize=undefined
> instead of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114403
--- Comment #26 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> That means, when the loop takes the early exit we _must_ take that during
> the vector iterations. Peeling for gaps means if we would take the early
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112914
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] ~7-9% exec |~7-9% exec time regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114704
Bug ID: 114704
Summary: Missed optimization : eliminate store if the value is
known in all predecessors
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114634
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114689
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114702
Bug ID: 114702
Summary: Missed optimization: fail to infer c - b != if a + b
!= c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114703
Bug ID: 114703
Summary: Missed devirtualization in rather simple case
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114608
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114621
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113499
--- Comment #6 from Arthur Cohen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> > If I understood Arthur correctly, GCC/Rust is going to effectively require
> > 'dlopen' (and therefore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #29 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong pair of insns. The earlier store to that
location was insn 111.
111: [r212:SI (1 MEM[(struct Vec128 *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] = {r0:SI..r3:SI}
It appears that the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114676
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80419
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107105
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105293
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114709
Bug ID: 114709
Summary: Incorrect handling of inactive union member access via
pointer to member in constant evaluated context
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114460
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Bug ID: 114708
Summary: Creating access to an incomplete formal in a generic
package sometimes causes GNAT to crash
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102649
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652
--- Comment #23 from Michael Meissner ---
This is one of those things where there is no right answer in part because we
need other things to flesh out the support.
The reason -mvsx was used is we need the VSX registers to build the IEEE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114696
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #26)
> Note that not updating the types seems wrong also pre C23. PR114493 could be
> an example of this:
>
> typedef struct a a;
> int c;
> int f(a **);
> struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57935
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57935=edit
gcc14-pr114574.patch
What about this patch then? So far just make check-gcc -j32 checked (though in
a version that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #26 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that not updating the types seems wrong also pre C23. PR114493 could be an
example of this:
typedef struct a a;
int c;
int f(a **);
struct __attribute__((__may_alias__)) a {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d74fe10b13336b9de2e025ced4af00a25ff1d3e7
commit r14-9943-d74fe10b13336b9de2e025ced4af00a25ff1d3e7
Author: Patrick Palka
c++:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
commit r14-9938-081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
Author: Patrick Palka
c++:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107430
Bug 107430 depends on bug 107457, which changed state.
Bug 107457 Summary: ICE when template lambda alias used as default template
argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107457
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107457
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 93595, which changed state.
Bug 93595 Summary: [c++20] function call, substitution failure of template
parameter with a lambda default in template context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114303
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113141
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df7bfdb7dbf2d46aa5768a0280d4dcfcc868b7f9
commit r14-9947-df7bfdb7dbf2d46aa5768a0280d4dcfcc868b7f9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113499
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
Carlos Eduardo Seo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos.seo at linaro dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596
Carlos Eduardo Seo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos.seo at linaro dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Carlos Eduardo Seo from comment #15)
> I see some failures after this patch on aarch64-linux-gnu:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr54693-2.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596
--- Comment #17 from Carlos Eduardo Seo ---
Noted. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114676
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114691
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91146346f57cc54dfeb2669347edd0eb3d13af7f
commit r14-9944-g91146346f57cc54dfeb2669347edd0eb3d13af7f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107457
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:716af95fd454871473c4b118b8412b6a68459b75
commit r14-9948-716af95fd454871473c4b118b8412b6a68459b75
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa57af93ba22865be747f926e4e5f219e7f8758a
commit r14-9949-gaa57af93ba22865be747f926e4e5f219e7f8758a
Author: Will Schmidt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114666
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245595d72818526e2ca857848831e8afa87ae2de
commit r14-9941-g245595d72818526e2ca857848831e8afa87ae2de
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fd824d717ca901319864a5eeba4e62b278f8329
commit r14-9942-g0fd824d717ca901319864a5eeba4e62b278f8329
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114426
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114666
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114705
Bug ID: 114705
Summary: [DR 2763] Warn about [[noreturn]] that returns during
constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
commit r14-9938-081c1e93d56d35c7314ed68e6d87628b430de917
Author: Patrick Palka
c++:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57937
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57937=edit
c_sizeof_8.f90
Here's a testcase derived from comment#0.
Feel free to adapt it to your meet your needs,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 99426, which changed state.
Bug 99426 Summary: [modules] failed to read compiled module cluster 1186: Bad
file data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 99426, which changed state.
Bug 99426 Summary: [modules] failed to read compiled module cluster 1186: Bad
file data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113141
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d435571b54b02946c97b5b24f20e5a7058fd96a1
commit r14-9946-gd435571b54b02946c97b5b24f20e5a7058fd96a1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
/gcc-trunk-20240412/include/c++/14.0.1/bit:94:33:
internal compiler error: in native_encode_initializer, at fold-const.cc:8468
94 | return __builtin_bit_cast(_To, __from);
| ^~~
0x267826c internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
0xa58c63 fancy_abort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE - std::bit_cast in |ICE - std::bit_cast in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865
--- Comment #21 from Peter Bergner ---
Fixed on trunk. I'll let it burn-in there for a bit before backporting to the
release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57931|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113793
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
