https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|testsuite-fail |
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115182
Bug ID: 115182
Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/cris/pr93372-47.c at
r15-518-g99b1daae18c095
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> For gcc.c-torture/execute/arith-rand-ll.c, does it help to replace the exit
> (0) call with a return 0 statement?
No. FWIW, it also doesn't help renaming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #1)
> Not-so-wild guess: r15-518, for similar-but-unrelated reasons to PR115144.
Ah, dyscalculia strikes again. :) Please ignore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58241
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58241=edit
tree-dump file@518 w. ivopts
As above @518 without -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58240=edit
tree-dump file@517 w. ivopts
As above @517, but no -fno-ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58239=edit
tree-dump file @518
arith-rand.c @r15-518
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 58238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58238=edit
tree-dump file@517
arith-rand.c @r15-517
compiled with -fno-ivopts -fdump-tree-optimized -march=v10 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I also ran a round compiled with -fno-ivopts -fno-delayed-branch: the latter
because it's somewhat non-linear in finding delay-slot-filling opportunities
(lack of "luck" causing improvements to negate)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115144
Bug ID: 115144
Summary: [15 Regression] 2% performance regression for some
codes with r15-518-g99b1daae18c095
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115110
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115141
Bug ID: 115141
Summary: [15 Regression] g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr83215.C and
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-lim-15.c since
r15-512-g9b7cad5884f21c
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114858
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Looks like it slowly chews up memory. I killed an -O2 run when cc1plus had
consumed 110 GiB, x86_64-linux at r14-10114-g09680e3ee7d7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114494
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114454
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >Please be advised that the argument is *not* evaluated with release checking
>
> Actually it is evaluated with release checking as release checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
Bug ID: 114492
Summary: Invalid use of gcc_assert (notably in
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-ldp-fusion.cc)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
There it is! I *knew* I had a PR entered for this, and was a bit surprised
when the ipa attribute was introduced, that this PR wasn't cross-referenced.
Then again I guess most people don't check in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108355
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Can --with-multilib-list=aprofile,rmprofile at least be made the default when
no colliding --with-* options are specified?
Would that blow up "everyone"'s CI due to the extra build time?
If so,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114143
Bug ID: 114143
Summary: Non-thumb arm32 code in thumb multilib for libgcc and
in -mthumb build
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113779
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
There's a test-suite patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643667.html which is
currently in review-ping limbo.
I'm unassigning myself from this PR. I won't work on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112737
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Looks like this also fixed one of the remaining FAILs logged in PR112580,
specifically
"FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header_b.C -std=c++2b (test for excess errors)".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
> (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #5)
> > Not entirely, xtreme-header_b.C is still failing, as indicated above. See
> > recently:
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113398
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113545
Bug ID: 113545
Summary: ICE in label_matches with constexpr function with
switch-statement and converted (nonconstant, cast
address) input
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102626
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113437
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm, sparc* |arm, sparc*, cris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 113038, which changed state.
Bug 113038 Summary: [14 regression] Excess errors for
g++.dg/modules/hello-1_b.C after r14-6569-gfe54b57728c09a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112588
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
For cris-elf, a change in the range (known to fail, known to pass]
(r14-8193-g3340878009acfc, r14-8200-g9a5e8f9d112adb] seems to have fixed the
remaining hello-1 execution failure, so fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 112580, which changed state.
Bug 112580 Summary: [14 Regression]: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-4_b.C et al;
ICE tree check: expected class 'type', have 'declaration'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112419
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Fixed. I guess.
Correct; sorry, I should have close it myself after the commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113230
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
By the (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Although I guess Andrew's qemu setup doesn't match the simulator ET.
FWIW, by his uploaded board-info file calling 'load_generic_config "sim"'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113230
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 113038, which changed state.
Bug 113038 Summary: [14 regression] Excess errors for
g++.dg/modules/hello-1_b.C after r14-6569-gfe54b57728c09a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113038
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |target
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> Huh, how bizarre.
Indeed. I'm *not* ruling out an actual gcc bug. Whether in the target or
middle-end this time I dare not guess; too few posts.
JFTR;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113226
Bug ID: 113226
Summary: [14 Regression]
testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc fails for
cris-elf after r14-6888-ga138b99646a555
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug,
> so IMO we shouldn't just disable it.
Maybe I should have been explicit: that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |testsuite
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Bisecting (native) has progressed beyond the r13 mark, i.e. this is indeed a
"[14 Regression]" only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mmix-knuth-mmixware |mmix-knuth-mmixware,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Bug ID: 113175
Summary: [14 Regression] MMIX:
testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times
slower
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #9)
> The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d03630b123411340e52d05124cb0cacfa1fc8b0
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #8)
> I'm wondering if we need to revert r14-6674 to avoid this functionality
> issue. And revisit/enhance the patch later.
No need, not anymore; not because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> So I did a quick audit of the EH_RETURN_HANDLER_RTX
Yeah, me too.
> and most are registers
> rather than a memory location . And the ones which were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Hmm, see PR 32398 and PR 32769. PR 32769 is interesting because it was
> caused by the merge of the df branch where the store was being removed just
> like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112883
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
It's __builtin_eh_return( that's miscompiled, such that the "handler" isn't
installed and the calling function will return to its caller instead of the
handler.
For the example below:
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> That
> printf-statement is likely not reached,
Now confirmed. The assembly output for eh6.s is identical (before/after), but
apparently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113109
Bug ID: 113109
Summary: [14 Regression] g++ EH tests fail at execution time
for cris-elf after r14-6674-g4759383245ac97
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112468
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #10)
> Hi,
>
> It's not forgotten. I've agreed on a fix with the maintainers that should
> solve a bunch of other (older) issues with copysign as well.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112468
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> testing patch
A month later: any update on that?
I didn't see a patch posted, so perhaps there was more work to it.
Please leave a note if you're no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
All mentioned except g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header_b.C -std=c++2b (test for
excess errors) seem to be fixed. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112786
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96831
Bug 96831 depends on bug 112786, which changed state.
Bug 112786 Summary: [14 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c scev-4.c and
scev-5.c XPASSing on most ilp32 targets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112786
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112894
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112786
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Note they XPASS on the 13 branch as well IIRC.
XPASS without Alex patch? Is that XPASS a typo for FAIL or PASS?
Either way, they FAIL, for ia32 say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112786
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112786
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112786
Bug ID: 112786
Summary: [14 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c scev-4.c and
scev-5.c XPASSing on most ilp32 targets
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112737
Bug ID: 112737
Summary: [14 Regression] g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-2_b.C
-std=c++2b (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
> Since 20230106, this test produces an XPASS, according to gcc-testresults
> postings this happens everywhere:
>
> +XPASS:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112630
Bug ID: 112630
Summary: [14 Regression] 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112580
Bug ID: 112580
Summary: [14 Regression]: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-4_b.C
et al; ICE tree check: expected class 'type', have
'declaration'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112419
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Assignee|uecker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112468
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|moxie-elf |moxie-elf, cris-elf,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112419
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |uecker at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112419
Bug ID: 112419
Summary: [14 Regression] gcc.dg/Wnonnull-4.c excess error for
32-bit targets
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le |powerpc64le, aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112320
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107567
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #8)
> I'm going to close this as WONTFIX.
I guess I'll have to find another PR to lean on, for fixing the underlying
cause for the nonatomic code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
> The cause I guess, is just a bad fall-through in the arm/sync.md.
Or rather, optabs.cc:expand_atomic_test_and_set, which makes this issue
somewhat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111523
Bug ID: 111523
Summary: Unexpected performance regression with
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero for e.g. systemctl unmask
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Possibly also *gcc-multilib*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111300
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The FAIL should be gone after r14-3812-gb96b554592c5cb
Also: thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111300
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The FAIL should be gone after r14-3812-gb96b554592c5cb
Confirmed
> but the underlying
> g++ problem is latent.
So, keeping this PR open is TRT?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111300
Bug ID: 111300
Summary: [14 Regression] g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-2_b.C
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
I don't think it's worthwhile to keep this open, as I'm pretty sure I fixed it
for all targets, as the cause wasn't target-related. Otherwise, reopen; if
adding a sarcastic comment, then preferably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|analyzer|testsuite
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
