https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> The Java front-end used to have option which caused the front-end to emit
> the throw/trap for the division by zero which was turned off for a few
> targets (I
Hi!
The wide-int.h templates expect that when an int/long etc. operand is used
it will be sign-extended based on the types precision.
wi_fold_in_parts passes 3 such non-zero constants to wi::lt_p, wi::gt_p
and wi::eq_p - 1, 3 and 4, which means it was doing weird things if either
some of 1, 3 or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > Of course integer division might be special enough to single out as IIRC
> > all CPUs trap on that (I'm sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Of course integer division might be special enough to single out as IIRC
> all CPUs trap on that (I'm sure somebody knows one that does not...).
MIPS backend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
--- Comment #4 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Hi Segher,
originally ifcvt would only pass e.g.
(unle (reg:SF 129 [ _29 ])
(reg/v:SF 118 [ highScore ]))
as condition to rs6000_emit_cmove via emit_conditional_move (). (This is the
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Since I didn't see anyone responding to this problem, I filed PR
> > 104356 to record the regression.
> > And yes this should be handled correctly.
>
> Thanks. Note that we have an example of this in libgcc/libgcc2.c too.
I assumed this was handled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104090
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104090
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Sebastian Huber
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d568abb25fc799123168aac840372b28bb81f85d
commit r10-10435-gd568abb25fc799123168aac840372b28bb81f85d
Author: Sebastian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104327
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Yes, that's the right fix I think. Thanks!
MVCLE is a shorter version of a loop doing MVCs but has some startup overhead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dragondreamer at live dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95269
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88164
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
For test, clang rejects it with:
:15:18: error: variable 'a' cannot be implicitly captured in a lambda
with no capture-default specified
return f(a); // Unexpected: does not call the copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50856
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104247
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104302
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||55227
Resolution|---
The patch for PR55227 changed the minimal init-list handling in
cp_complete_array_type to a call to reshape_init, which broke on the dependent
initializer. It occurred to me that trying to deduce the array size from a
dependent init-list is wrong in general, as we can see with the second
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104302
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:501c4ee9fad68716497db4d96b63b801cc57b4a1
commit r12-7010-g501c4ee9fad68716497db4d96b63b801cc57b4a1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Expressions of the form "X + CST < Y + CST" where:
* CST is an unsigned integer constant with only the MSB set, and
* X and Y's types have integer conversion ranks <= CST's
can be simplified to "(signed) X < (signed) Y".
This is because, assuming a 32-bit signed numbers,
(unsigned) INT_MIN +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104360
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note it is easier to detect the vector version of this though:
isN_3 = x_2(D) < { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
x_4 = x_2(D) ^ isN_3;
_5 = x_4 - isN_3;
Pattern here:
(minus @0 (bit_xor:c @0 (lt@1 @0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359
--- Comment #2 from Will Usher ---
Oh gotcha, then this can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104360
Bug ID: 104360
Summary: Failure to optimize abs pattern on vector types
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359
Bug ID: 104359
Summary: GCC Treats bool with value != 1 as falsey when picking
branches
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #6 from qingzhe huang ---
But clang can give similar clear message by pointing out the space.
Just like ">>" instead "> >" after c++98, I think GCC can do better to
recognize ">>=" is possible of "> >=". Just considering even though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104358
Bug ID: 104358
Summary: Assignable template lambda as function parameter is
incorrectly reduced to type of "int"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
I committed r12-7009 to fix a couple of typos in the description
of the option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2022-February/360083.html
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[Aarch64] Failure to use|Failure to use csinv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
This is on top of Martin's changes. Pushed.
Gerald
---
htdocs/gcc-4.5/changes.html | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-4.5/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-4.5/changes.html
index c141a4d9..5181bae8 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-4.5/changes.html
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100588
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104357
Bug ID: 104357
Summary: [Aarch64] Failure to use csinv instead of mvn+csel
where possible
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104300
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
The third patch in the series adds a pointer_query instance to the wrestrict
pass and uses it for each invocation to check a function.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gimple-ssa-warn-restrict.cc (class pass_wrestrict): Outline ctor.
(pass_wrestrict::m_ptr_qry): New member.
The second patch in the series adds a pointer_query instance to the array
bounds checker object and uses it for each invocation to check a function.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gimple-array-bounds.cc (array_bounds_checker::array_bounds_checker):
Define ctor.
The first patch in the series make the pointer_query cache a private
member of the class and removes the ability to create an object of it
without one, or one with an external cache. It also simplifies existing
clients of the class that provide an external cache to avoid doing so.
gcc/ChangeLog:
Richard, as we discussed(*), this patch series enables the pointer_query
cache in the remaining two passes where it's currently disabled. Since
not using the cache is not an option anymore, the first patch in
the series makes it a private member of the pointer_query class and its
use
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:24AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> The -m[no-]fold-gimple flag was really intended primarily for internal
> testing while implementing GIMPLE folding for rs6000 vector built-in
> functions. It ended up leaking into other places, causing problems such
> as PR103686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
> Since I didn't see anyone responding to this problem, I filed PR
> 104356 to record the regression.
> And yes this should be handled correctly.
Thanks. Note that we have an example of this in libgcc/libgcc2.c too.
--
Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104335
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Robin,
Can you please explain what really happens now? What arguments
rs6000_emit_cmove
is called with, and when that goes wrong?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately this breaks quite a lot of things.
>
> Right, for example in Ada where we now happily turn a division by zero, which
> should raise an exception with -gnatp, into nonsense. Do we really need this
> rather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
Bug ID: 104356
Summary: [12 Regression] divide by zero trap is being removed
now when it should not be in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100196
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91728
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104302
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212
--- Comment #9 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem can be seen in the loop2_unroll dump:
pthaugen@pike:~/temp/pr68212$ grep "Invalid sum of" simple.c.272r.loop2_unroll
;; Invalid sum of incoming counts 285685646 (estimated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot
On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> > I replaced and verified http:// links for various domains.
>
> Thank you, and apologies for not acking this right away back then.
>
> (Did you ping, and I missed that? Not that you should have
On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 17:14 +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, David,
>
> Thank you for fixing this issue!
>
> > On Feb 2, 2022, at 9:06 AM, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches <
> > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > GCC 12 has gained two features for dealing with uninitialized
> > variables:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> No, whole >>= is one token (CPP_RSHIFT_EQ).
Oh you are correct, I misread/misremembered the tokens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102584
Stafford Horne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shorne at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
risk/churn.
> > At least that is what I'M currently trying. would this be OK?
>
> Let's see what you can come up with.
> (which is why I really did like to have the old EVRP since conceptually
> it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104270
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb45d8e692d41d0d5d0fea56791d5dca448009c5
commit r12-7007-gfb45d8e692d41d0d5d0fea56791d5dca448009c5
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
See Also|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> I replaced and verified http:// links for various domains.
Thank you, and apologies for not acking this right away back then.
(Did you ping, and I missed that? Not that you should have to, just
missing a ping would be even worse.)
In any case this is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103934
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104347
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the trunk, GCC is able to compile this.
clang gives the following error though:
:328:11: error: alias template 'SISpeed' requires template arguments;
argument deduction only allowed for class templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104327
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The mvcle instructions actually aren't guarded by TARGET_MVCLE, they are
TARGET_64BIT || !TARGET_ZARCH
or
!TARGET_64BIT && TARGET_ZARCH
which means available everywhere, so TARGET_MVCLE seems just like an
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
> As the minimal GCC version that can build the current master is 4.8, it
> does not make sense mentioning something for older versions.
>
> Ready to be installed?
Yep, looks good.
Thank you,
Gerald
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|better error message for|better error message for
>+ inline void
>+ atomic_flag_wait_explicit(const atomic_flag* __a, bool __old,
>+ std::memory_order __m) noexcept
No need for the std:: qualification, and check the indentation.
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
>PR103934
This needs to include the component: PR libstdc++/103934
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104319
--- Comment #2 from qingzhe huang ---
A slightly different case with operator ">=" after template-id causing
identical error message is: https://www.godbolt.org/z/7ajvfM4rb
#include
template
constexpr std::size_t zero=0;
template
constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|Too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100196
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
On 2/2/22 13:21, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here we're crashing during satisfaction of the lambda's placeholder type
constraints because the constraints depend on the template arguments
from the enclosing scope, which aren't a part of the lambda's
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 22:00, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
>
>
> The standard requires directory iterators to become equal to the end
> iterator value if they report an error. Some members functions of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104354
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Created attachment 52334
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52334=edit
GCC 12-compatible RTS
On 2/2/22 12:09, Patrick Palka wrote:
The satisfaction cache needs to look through ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT
template arguments before calling iterative_hash_template_arg and
template_args_equal, which would otherwise crash.
Maybe we should handle ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355
Bug ID: 104355
Summary: Misleading -Warray-bounds documentation says "always
out of bounds"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104354
Bug ID: 104354
Summary: ICE with Partition_Elaboration_Policy (Sequential)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On 2/1/2022 7:45 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi,
this is a bugfix for aa8cfe785953a0e87d2472311e1260cd98c605c0 which
broke an or1k test case (PR104153) as well as SPARC bootstrap (PR104198).
cond_exec_get_condition () returns the jump condition directly and we
now it to the backend. The or1k
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:23:44PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Note that I think something similar may be needed to mark EOL for the
> pointer passed to realloc to fix a related set of false positives for code
> like this
>
> bool something = p != q;
> whatever = realloc (p,
Tested on powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64}. Committed.
Segher
2022-02-02 Segher Boessenkool
gcc/testsuite/
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_powerpc_altivec_ok):
Return 0 if the target is not Power. Restructure and add some comments.
---
On 2/2/2022 7:42 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
This adds a flag to CONSTRUCTOR nodes indicating that for
clobbers this marks the end-of-life of storage as opposed to
just ending the lifetime of the object that occupied it.
The dangling pointer diagnostics uses CLOBBERs but is
Hi Mikael,
Am 29.01.22 um 15:24 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Hello,
the attached patch is a fix for PR104228.
Even if simple, I wouldn’t call it obvious, as it’s involving character
length and associate, so I don’t mind some extra review eyes.
I am probably not experienced enough to review this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104331
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104331
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:323e72a83d417b230c2d93455fa09a4b66614c2a
commit r10-10433-g323e72a83d417b230c2d93455fa09a4b66614c2a
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104331
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4aa5a3e95ba106f3149157a0278616f7a5fd192
commit r11-9535-gf4aa5a3e95ba106f3149157a0278616f7a5fd192
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104328
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52332=edit
gcc12-pr104328.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104353
Bug ID: 104353
Summary: ppc64le: Apparent reliance on undefined behavior of
xvcvdpsxws
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104090
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Sebastian Huber
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3cb53c10831be59d967d9dce8e7980fee4703500
commit r11-9534-g3cb53c10831be59d967d9dce8e7980fee4703500
Author: Sebastian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Unlike the false positive -Wuse-after-free in pr104232, the instance of
-Wdangling-pointer in this case (a PHI argument) is intentional so that we
diagnose problems like those in the request for it
On 2/2/22 09:35, Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
this fixes the s390 bootstrap errors caused by -Werror=format-diag. It
simply splits the problematic format strings.
Either this:
error ("% is unknown", orig_p);
or this would be better:
error ("attribute % is unknown", orig_p);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104352
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104352
Bug ID: 104352
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_anyall, at
fortran/trans-intrinsic.cc:4481 (etc.)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
Hi!
On 2/1/22 3:48 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 08:49:34AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> I've modified the previous patch to add more explanatory commentary about
>> the number-of-arguments test that was previously confusing, and to convert
>> the switch into an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104351
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104351
Bug ID: 104351
Summary: ICE in gfc_generate_initializer, at
fortran/expr.cc:5140
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
