https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #11 from Pekka S ---
Hi,
that indeed does solve the build issue, though I only tried using
--disable-analyzer. I've been using a similar patch up until this point, but
retired my local patch in favour of this. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97610
Bug ID: 97610
Summary: [10/11] template argument deduction fails for function
with defaulted lambda as non-type-template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97603
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> Shouldn't it be marked as target issue for x86?
Or you means that middle-end should transform code to
int g();
int f(int a, int b)
{
int c = a - b;
if (c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97472
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it w/ gcc-11.0.0-alpha20201025 snapshot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97603
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Shouldn't it be marked as target issue for x86?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97606
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97609
Bug ID: 97609
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains 'decl common' structure, have 'component_ref'
in tree_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2708
Pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 49456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49456&action=edit
fix for riscv targets
> Still broken
Sorry, it's the first I hear of this problem on riscv.
The fix is targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97608
Bug ID: 97608
Summary: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when returning
p+1 instead of p
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96892
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #2)
> Wouldn't it be enough to add:
>
> "emit_move_insn (operands[3], gen_rtx_MEM(SImode, operands[3]));"
>
> just before the line "if (TARGET_32BIT)" in stack_prote
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97607
Bug ID: 97607
Summary: Spurious sign extension
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97606
Bug ID: 97606
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2196
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97605
Bug ID: 97605
Summary: unused conditionally freed allocation not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #13 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Tried firefox-82 with LTO+PGO today on gcc-11-4428-g4a369d199bf. It gets a lot
more forward, but still gets stuck. This time on free()->allocate_gcov_kvp
()->alloc() deadloc.
The backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97574
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Submitted a patch to get the driver to stop mangling nul so it makes it easier
for binutils to detect.
That said Jonathan is right in that there's still a binutils bug here. I had
forgotten that even thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97604
Bug ID: 97604
Summary: Bad digit separators accepted in pp-numbers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97603
Bug ID: 97603
Summary: Failure to optimize out compare into reuse of
subtraction result
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97602
Bug ID: 97602
Summary: #line overflow check incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97497
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andreas Krebbel :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b3e722a3ca1b9dcfff1c016e651d0d681de1af0
commit r11-4460-g2b3e722a3ca1b9dcfff1c016e651d0d681de1af0
Author: Andreas Krebbel
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97491
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a764c40079a493826a3678174f908941a383644e
commit r11-4459-ga764c40079a493826a3678174f908941a383644e
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97600
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
I think all views whose begin()/end() has a placeholder return type and
performs direct initialization of a _Iterator/_Sentinel from *this are affected
by some variant of this issue.
A library-side workaroun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97600
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
--- Comment #1 from Patrick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97592
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=97598
--- Comment #1 from Philip R Brenan ---
Created attachment 49454
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49454&action=edit
Test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97601
Bug ID: 97601
Summary: ICE when using type determined by
std::tuple_element_t<...>, on tuple generated from
type id stored in std::array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97600
Bug ID: 97600
Summary: [ranges] result of static assertion depends on
unrelated statement
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It's actually a partial cross compiler (-m32), please take a look at the
> build log.
What's this beast exactly? I'm afraid the build log is useless here, it would
be better to post the configure line an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] On |[9/10 Regression] On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97599
Bug ID: 97599
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] missing unspecified_parameters
DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f801e0b6cc9f67c9a8983127e23161f6025c5b6
commit r11-4453-g0f801e0b6cc9f67c9a8983127e23161f6025c5b6
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97598
Bug ID: 97598
Summary: -Wself-init alone fails to warn of a pointless
assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97579
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> So we have used_vec_cond_exprs == 1 and a V16SI eq/ne compare with a
> vector(16) HImode result. We fall into
>
> gcc_assert (known_eq (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97596
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-27
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Bug ID: 97597
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in build_over_call, at
cp/call.c:9034
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Mine, I see a strange error:
>
> $ Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
> 0x3fffb7ceddbc in __GI__IO_link_in () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> Missing separate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe90c504416e6423c6a56f37a9265deabdb03de9
commit r11-4445-gfe90c504416e6423c6a56f37a9265deabdb03de9
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
Yes, the volatile is the problem. We need to disable some optimizations like
the combiner to avoid breaking the semantics of volatile. However, if you try
looking at other ports, like arm, you can see that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 49452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49452&action=edit
preprocessed source, unreduced, gzipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97596
Bug ID: 97596
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at
tree.c:1535
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
#include
template void std::basic_iostream::swap(basic_iostream&);
The preprocessed code is no smaller, but this should only generate code for the
problematic function, not the entire class and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
Bug ID: 97595
Summary: [11 Regression] warning: writing 1 byte into a region
of size 0 [-Wstringop-overflow=]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|new test case |[11 Regression] new test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Meremyanin ---
Maybe but in the #95291 crash occurs when access member, and here when
operator() is called. So probably both issues have a single cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Sidwell ---
ah, the logic to squirrel away lookups on a magic attribute list, records that
nothing is found. But we don't preserve that negative lookup when injecting
these lookups into the parameter binding. So we'l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I see.
> Can you please take care of it?
I will - as a natural punishment for cleaning this up :))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
>
> --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > Created attachment 49450 [details]
> > fix
> >
> > > Yes, I no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> Created attachment 49450 [details]
> fix
>
> > Yes, I noticed that right now :) Please attach me the patch here.
> Sorry for bogus patch. This one has chance to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 49451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49451&action=edit
Build log
It's actually a partial cross compiler (-m32), please take a look at the build
log.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Yes, I noticed that right now :) Please attach me the patch here.
Sorry for bogus patch. This one has chance to work.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
Bug ID: 97594
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr97461.c execution
failure
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 49449
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49449&action=edit
preprocessed source, unreduced, gzipped
Here's another example that produces this kind of warning, this time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #11)
> > Hi,
> > this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
> Actually it won't help, since it updates only non-lto summary. I am
> testing bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> Hmm, this is anoying: we can not store summary to PCH. I guess we want to
> collect thunks to a vector and annotate them to callgraph at finalization
> time :(
I se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, this is anoying: we can not store summary to PCH. I guess we want to
collect thunks to a vector and annotate them to callgraph at finalization time
:(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Hi,
> this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
Actually it won't help, since it updates only non-lto summary. I am
testing better patch, sorry for that.
Honza
> Hi,
> this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
Actually it won't help, since it updates only non-lto summary. I am
testing better patch, sorry for that.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
The original commit was sent here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01745.html
Git commit: g:315d42482cf3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
Bug ID: 97593
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in gt_pch_nx, at
symbol-summary.h:290 since r11-4329-g67f3791f7d133214
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92942, which changed state.
Bug 92942 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow for allocations with a negative
lower bound size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0b09c1296d5334d1d264ba4d39ca932f9572330
commit r11-4441-gc0b09c1296d5334d1d264ba4d39ca932f9572330
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97592
Bug ID: 97592
Summary: Incorrectly set pointer remapping with array pointer
argument to CONTIGUOUS dummy
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97567
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 49448
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49448&action=edit
Adjust test case for 32 bit
change the testcase type to long long to avoid issues on 32 bit targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||v.stiff at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Meremyanin ---
Program source:
// /usr/local/Cellar/gcc/10.2.0/bin/g++-10 -std=c++20 type-level-routes.cpp
#include
#include
// FixedString from
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/bhxx49/c20_string_literals_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Meremyanin ---
g++-10 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/Cellar/gcc/10.2.0/bin/g++-10
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/Cellar/gcc/10.2.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin19/10.2.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
Bug ID: 97591
Summary: Segmentation fault by non-type template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83035
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70099
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tonvandenheuvel at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16ad9ae85bb5b9acf80f9d1cf2be5a989ef7ba49
commit r11-4437-g16ad9ae85bb5b9acf80f9d1cf2be5a989ef7ba49
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea_iob at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70940
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. if that failure only appeared recently it would be more useful to mail the
libstdc++ list than to add a comment to an old bug that hasn't been touched in
years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70940
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Should be fixed at g:01079b6a9236bd467b445fafaff2659840789a85
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97514
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea0ae4e77a89d4a0492dcbbc13e9cbc19bcc2361
commit r11-4433-gea0ae4e77a89d4a0492dcbbc13e9cbc19bcc2361
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #4 from SRINATH PARVATHANENI ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #2)
> Thanks for reporting this.
>
> The expansion of assignments to misaligned ssa names
> does not handle the case of misaligned stores, which
> would result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97560
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
commit r11-4430-g31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97590
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
commit r11-4430-g31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97590
Bug ID: 97590
Summary: new test case g++.dg/pr97560.C compilation errors
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #14 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Builds fine for me on powerpc64 LE and BE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
This builds for me on powerpc64-linux, so I gather it's on powerpc64le-linux?
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
