This is the first in a set of performance improvements. Over the summer
a few things have snuck in that are slowing down EVRP.
A recent change introduced a frequent check for zero and non-zero which
has caused a lot of extra temporary trees to be created.
This patch makes the check more
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, 14:19 dimechc, wrote:
> I got the GCC 11.2 download, but cannot locate the doc directory used to
> produce the
> gcc documentation manuals.
>
You still haven't said which documentation you're talking about.
GCC has lots of documentation. All the sources should be in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98257
Jason McCampbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonm at cadence dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
(Nice optimisations!)
Kyrylo Tkachov writes:
> Hi Tamar,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tamar Christina
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 5:19 PM
>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Cc: nd ; Richard Earnshaw ;
>> Marcus Shawcroft ; Kyrylo Tkachov
>> ; Richard Sandiford
>>
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
:1-1 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102547
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95567
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
"Roger Sayle" writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
> All excellent suggestions. The revised patch below implements all of
> your (and Andreas') recommendations. I'm happy to restrict GCC's support
> for saturating arithmetic to integer types, even though I do know of one
> target (nvptx) that supports
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 98486, which changed state.
Bug 98486 Summary: Variable template specialization doesn't account for
primary's constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102163
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101883
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102547
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aef951f1aa0b50a8da12f6fe6e80f3fdaa4d98e
commit r11-9086-g1aef951f1aa0b50a8da12f6fe6e80f3fdaa4d98e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102535
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d80c0e4584acc204ca9a2f8880ad455fef48371f
commit r11-9085-gd80c0e4584acc204ca9a2f8880ad455fef48371f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95567
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e84436a273f0fbb42b9785ff5bb1deaf9a500f37
commit r11-9084-ge84436a273f0fbb42b9785ff5bb1deaf9a500f37
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98216
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
commit r11-9083-g1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
commit r11-9083-g1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a411459b73b65d8a1235a16d6e2aac4eed17338
commit r11-9082-g5a411459b73b65d8a1235a16d6e2aac4eed17338
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:729cf2ea979f396e706625b1669087d5920b8c2a
commit r11-9081-g729cf2ea979f396e706625b1669087d5920b8c2a
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102163
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59c6831682dfa8bec2b5a62bdc85739924970808
commit r11-9080-g59c6831682dfa8bec2b5a62bdc85739924970808
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
commit r11-9079-gdc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
commit r11-9079-gdc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101883
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52dd840c5eba25ef54dee3f1c78f371032a7c051
commit r11-9078-g52dd840c5eba25ef54dee3f1c78f371032a7c051
Author: Patrick Palka
The pending patch I have from Richi fixes this. Even so, it's the
uninit code that's confused.
Sigh...every single change to the threading code shines the light on
some warning bug.
If you take the calls.ii file from the aarch64 bootstrap and break on
the warning, you can see that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102198
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
1. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:19 passes.
2. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:20 fails.
3. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:1-20 fails.
4. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:2-20 passes.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 01:19:28PM +, dimechc via Gcc wrote:
> I got the GCC 11.2 download, but cannot locate the doc directory used to
> produce the
> gcc documentation manuals.
gcc/doc/, gcc/*/*.texi, libstdc++-v3/doc/, lib*/*.texi, ...
Jakub
I got the GCC 11.2 download, but cannot locate the doc directory used to
produce the
gcc documentation manuals.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, October 6th, 2021 at 12:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 13:07, dimechc via Gcc gcc@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
>
> >
On Okt 05 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> From 5abe65668f602d53b8f3dc515508dc4616beb048 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Aldy Hernandez
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:03:34 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Loosen loop crossing restriction in threader.
>
> Crossing loops is generally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102611
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> > Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> > play?
>
> -fno-thread-jumps fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> > Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> > play?
>
> -fno-thread-jumps fixes
> On 05/10/2021 21:57 Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
> This fixes a bootstrap fail because saw_static_libcxx was unused for
> targets without support for -Bstatic/dynamic.
>
> The fix applied pushes the -static-libstdc++ back onto the command
> line, which allows a target to substitute a static
On 05/10/2021 19:03, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 03:32:52PM -0300, Raphael Moreira Zinsly wrote:
Without dwarf2 unwind tables available _Unwind_Backtrace() is not
able to return the full backtrace.
This patch adds a fallback function on powerpc to get the backtrace
by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> play?
-fno-thread-jumps fixes the bug.
> If so, you could try to narrow it down to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > Here is a slightly more reduced testcase (without the reasonable
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 12:39:01PM +0100, Kwok Cheung Yeung wrote:
> In secion 2.3.1 of the OpenMP 5.0 spec, it says:
>
> 3. For functions within a declare target block, the target trait is added to
> the beginning of the set...
>
> But OpenMP in Fortran doesn't have the notion of a declare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
1. Need large model crtbegin*.o and crtend*.o.
2. Need large mode libgcc.a, libgcc_eh.a and libgcov.a.
3. Need large mode lib*.a if we want to link with lib*.a
4. Need the large model libc.a if we want to support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 13:07, dimechc via Gcc wrote:
>
> Have been scrutinising the GCC 11.2 Download. I would appreciate if you start
> including the gcc source files for the documentation
> in the release as well.
They should be present already. Which documentation are you talking about?
Có Uh R rr r rv
Được gửi r cg vwtừ iPhone của tôi để ge rrb
Have been scrutinising the GCC 11.2 Download. I would appreciate if you start
including the gcc source files for the documentation
in the release as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96339
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98056
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #13)
> In current master (90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294), we don't ICE,
> but instead get this error:
>
> coroutine-initializer-list.cc: In member function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56659
--- Comment #5 from Paul ---
Just tried all versions of gfortran available up to 10.2.0: the very same
'internal compiler error' is still reported using the initial reproducer.
May that be connected to the old Linux we're using (CentOS 7.8)?
Hi,
As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
static inline uint8_t
x264_clip_uint8(uint8_t x)
{
uint8_t t = -x;
uint8_t t1 = x & ~63;
return (t1 != 0) ? t : x;
}
void
mc_weight(uint8_t *restrict dst, uint8_t *restrict src, int n)
{
for (int x = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98056
--- Comment #13 from Avi Kivity ---
In current master (90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294), we don't ICE, but
instead get this error:
coroutine-initializer-list.cc: In member function ‘task task::e()’:
coroutine-initializer-list.cc:23:3:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The assembly difference r11-8007 to r11-8008 is:
--- pr102627.s 2021-10-06 06:32:46.0 -0400
+++ pr102627.s 2021-10-06 06:33:00.0 -0400
@@ -77,10 +77,10 @@ main:
movq%rdx, %rcx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Target Milestone|---
Early ping for this patch.
(I still plan to review Harald's pending patch soon, unless someone
beats me:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/580810.html )
On 01.10.21 02:43, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi all,
this patch fixes a bunch of issues with CLASS.
* * *
Side remark: I
[Here go the bits by Richi, tested on x86-64 Linux, and ongoing tests
on aarch64 and ppc64le.]
There is a lot of fall-out from this patch, as there were many threading
tests that assumed the restrictions introduced by this patch were valid.
Some tests have merely shifted the threading to after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Workaround committed, so for OpenMP it shouldn't trigger anymore.
But for
int
foo (char *p)
{
long double l = 0.0;
__builtin_clear_padding ();
return __builtin_memcpy (, p, sizeof (l));
}
it still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Even with plain -O1 I see the wrong 0 result, -O0 and -O2 are fine. Testcase
that aborts:
int a, f, l, m, q, c, d, g;
long b, e;
struct g {
signed h;
signed i;
unsigned j;
unsigned k;
};
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294
commit r12-4208-g90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
The following makes more stmts consumable with the GIMPLE FE
when dumping with -gimple. In particular addresses in GIMPLE
operand position require wrapping with _Literal.
The TDF_ flag space is now exhausted and I've removed overlaps
and re-ordered things as to how it is supposed to work and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 102612, which changed state.
Bug 102612 Summary: [C++23] P2242R3 - Non-literal variables (and labels and
gotos) in constexpr functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Currently the frontend rejects those addresses as not lvalues
because the C frontend doens't expect MEM_REF or TARGET_MEM_REF
to appear (but they would be valid lvalues there). The following
fixes that by amending lvalue_p.
The change also makes the dumping of the source of the testcase
valid
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:40:45PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I've switched to handling bases via binfo as discussed on IRC and added
> spaceship-synth14.C to test proper base handling with virtual <=>. Here's
> what I'm committing:
Thanks a lot.
I see spaceship-synth8.C is accepted without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102624
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
Hi!
For the few long double types that do have padding bits, e.g. on x86
the clear_type_padding_in_mask computed mask is
ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 00 for 32-bit and
ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 for 64-bit.
Instead of doing __builtin_clear_padding on both operands that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba837323dbda2bca5a1c8a4c78092a88241dcfa3
commit r12-4207-gba837323dbda2bca5a1c8a4c78092a88241dcfa3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102620
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #6 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102608
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|12.0
Last reconfirmed|
nu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/data/bin/gcc-dev/ --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211006 (experimental) (GCC)
git ver:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8892d532d66910e518bc135a851a104322385ca2
commit r12-4206-g8892d532d66910e518bc135a851a104322385ca2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:14 AM rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
> Btw, please report cases where -gimple doesn't produce valid GIMPLE FE
> inputs (OK, there are known cases with mangled symbol names when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 102616, which changed state.
Bug 102616 Summary: [C++23] P2334R1 - Add support for preprocessing directives
elifdef and elifndef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102616
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
More reduced testcase:
class A
{
int index;
double param;
float clen;
};
extern A Get ();
class B : A
{
B ();
};
B::B () : A { Get () } {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
>
> --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> > > BTW, the __MEM_REF output from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80004
Bug 80004 depends on bug 49244, which changed state.
Bug 49244 Summary: __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
Bug 102566 depends on bug 49244, which changed state.
Bug 49244 Summary: __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> > BTW, the __MEM_REF output from the dumps does not work in -fgimple either.
> > More errors.
>
> Can you share an example?
This is from gcc.c-torture/execute/961125-1.c compiled with -fgimple:
char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On 05.10.21 23:54, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:16:47PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
On 04.10.21 16:14, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
Based on some IRC discussion, yet another option would be bump libgfortran
SONAME (on all arches), make real(kind=16) on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102626
Bug ID: 102626
Summary: [c++20] compiler crash when invoking constexpr
function in the constructor of template class
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
>
> --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
101 - 190 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
