https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113966
Bug ID: 113966
Summary: Internal compiler error in `do_auto_deduction`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113965
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57443
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57443=edit
Reduced testcase
Attached is the reduced testcase that I was using here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
Blocks|53947
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113965
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, debugging this a little further, this might be a qemu issue with fp16
support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113958
--- Comment #3 from Noel Grandin ---
Andrew, the specific application here is a very large (10MLoc) codebase
(LibreOffice), where we have lots of very large classes with tons of methods,
where I want to limit symbol visibility to only the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113965
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113965
Bug ID: 113965
Summary: [14 Regression]
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/mask_struct_load_3_run.c still
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|repeat copy of struct |[11/12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113964
Bug ID: 113964
Summary: repeat copy of struct
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113963
--- Comment #1 from Paul Eggert ---
Created attachment 57442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57442=edit
test program without line number directives (also compressed)
This is the same program as savedir.i, except without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113963
Bug ID: 113963
Summary: analyzer-null-dereference, analyzer-malloc-leak false
alarms in Gnulib savedir.c
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113497
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71219
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88687
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-17
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87313
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83194
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Hello,
I posted the attached patch in bugzilla some time ago. This includes a
new test case. The patch adds additional checks in key places to catch
eroneous use of semicolons
Regression tested on x86_64,
OK for trunk and later backport to 13?
Jerrydiff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111935
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113331
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113959
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
The attached patch fixes this one. Se the ChangeLog below for explanation.
OK for trunk?
I think simple enough to backport to 13 as well.
Regards,
Jerry
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: Fri Feb 16 17:06:37 2024 -0800
libgfortran: Fix namelist read.
PR libgfortran/107068
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113960
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113958
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not 100% sure if type_visibility is needed here or in general. You can
also use -fvisibility-inlines-hidden to hide methods that are declared as
inline which I suspect you want really too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113958
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
You can use visibility on the type even Like:
```
struct __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) Foo1{
virtual void some_member() = 0;
};
struct __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) Foo : Foo1 {
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
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > > There is no function prologue to optimise in the VAX case, because all
> > > the frame setup has already been made by the CALLS instruction itself in
> > > the caller. The first machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113959
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57440
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57440=edit
testcase from the godbolt link
Next time attach the testcase or put it in line instead of just linking to
godbolt.
On 2/16/24 1:40 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Dear all,
this patch fixes a regression which was a side-effect of r14-8947,
losing the length of a deferred-length character variable when
passed as a dummy.
The new testcase provides a workout for deferred length to improve
coverage in the testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113959
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107068
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
After a bit of sleuthing it turns out that the '(' in the name was being
ignored and the comma in '(1,2)' was being treated as a delimiter. Since the
following '=' was not seen yet, the 2 was seen as a
On 2/10/24 10:10, Matteo Italia wrote:
Il 09/02/24 15:18, Matteo Italia ha scritto:
The Win32 threading model uses __gthr_win32_abs_to_rel_time to convert
the timespec used in gthreads to specify the absolute time for end of
the condition variables timed wait to a milliseconds value relative to
CCing some global reviewers as well, in case anyone has a minute to
take a look please? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638692.html
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:57 PM Lewis Hyatt wrote:
>
> May I please ask again about this one? It's just a couple lines, and I
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113850
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Yong
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5def8fd08976fc2514426ecb1f263f13ba3e2af
commit r13-8337-gb5def8fd08976fc2514426ecb1f263f13ba3e2af
Author: Matteo Italia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113850
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Yong :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05ad8fb55a55f1e201fd781c84682a7c0bbd4d97
commit r14-9042-g05ad8fb55a55f1e201fd781c84682a7c0bbd4d97
Author: Matteo Italia
Date:
Can memrefs computed in analyze_loop_vinfo ?
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2024-02-13 21:42
To: gcc-patches; palmer; Kito Cheng; jeffreyalaw; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: [PATCH] RISC-V: Adjust vec unit-stride load/store costs.
Hi,
scalar loads provide offset
Hi,
your suggestion almost did the trick, but caused regressions with
lambda closures in target regions.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Ah, and the reason why it doesn't work on target is that it has the
everything is mapped assumption:
if ((ctx->region_type & ORT_TARGET) != 0)
{
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113913
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
It's the known issue we are trying to fix it in GCC-15.
My colleague Lehua is taking care of it.
CCing Lehua.
Snapshot gcc-12-20240216 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20240216/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104836
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57527
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:47:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following patch works.
Or yet another option would be instead of (sometimes) clearing
declarator->parameter_pack_p when we diagnose this bug for error
recovery ignore the this specifier.
With the following patch (testsuite patch
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 04:39:47PM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
> > + instantiate & evaluate the noexcept to true/false. */
> > + if (processing_template_decl)
> > +
> -Original Message-
> From: Marek Polacek
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 11:11 AM
> To: Andrew Pinski (QUIC)
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [COMMITTED] c++: Add testcase for this PR [PR97990]
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 11:00:34AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > This
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:20:26PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I've tried that (see below), but am getting
> Excess errors:
> /usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/explicit-obj-diagnostics3.C:33:29:
> error: parameter packs not expanded with '...':
And the reason for those is that e.g. on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113911
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-16
Dear all,
this patch fixes a regression which was a side-effect of r14-8947,
losing the length of a deferred-length character variable when
passed as a dummy.
The new testcase provides a workout for deferred length to improve
coverage in the testsuite. Another temporarily disabled test was
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 2/15/24 17:17, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > >
> > > By the ??? below I mean that maybe_instantiate_noexcept could
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:47:18PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> This is the 6th version of the patch.
Thanks! I've tested this and it meets all the current behavioral
expectations I've got:
https://github.com/kees/kernel-tools/blob/trunk/fortify/array-bounds.c
Additionally, this builds the Linux
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/15/24 17:17, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > By the ??? below I mean that maybe_instantiate_noexcept could return
> > a tristate, and then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109802
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> +GCC no longer casts all pointer types to all other pointer types.
>>
>> Do you mean it no longer does so implicitly, or not at all? That is,
>> there are now cases where even an explicit cast such as
>>
>> foo_p = (foo_type*) bar_p
>>
>> no longer
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:47:41PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Can we move all the xobj handling down here (where we can trust
> declarator->parameter_pack_p) instead of adding a new variable?
I've tried that (see below), but am getting
Excess errors:
Hi Peter,
thanks for your contribution to gfortran! You've found indeed
a solution for a potentially annoying bug.
Am 15.02.24 um 18:50 schrieb Peter Hill:
Dear all,
The attached patch fixes PR105658 by forcing an array temporary to be
created. This is required when passing an array
Hello All,
I am Nada Elsayed, A fresh graduate from computer engineering at Cairo
University.
I have good knowledge in C/C++, and a basic knowledge in compilers. als I
am interested in contributing to the GCC this year; I am interested in "*Extend
the static analysis pass" *projects or "*Improve
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:40:39PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > --- gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.cc.jj2024-02-13 12:50:21.666846296 +0100
> > +++ gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.cc 2024-02-16 20:40:51.374763528 +0100
> > @@ -410,6 +410,15 @@ cp_type_dwarf_attribute (const_tree type
> > return 1;
On 2/14/24 18:33, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 14 Feb 2024, at 22:59, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024, at 19:59, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/10/24 07:30, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 10 Feb 2024, at 12:07, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/10/24 05:46, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 9 Feb 2024, at 23:21, Iain
On 2/15/24 17:17, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
By the ??? below I mean that maybe_instantiate_noexcept could return
a tristate, and then maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec could check
if (maybe_instantiate_noexcept ().is_unknown ())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On 2/15/24 17:16, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
IMHO trivial enough to go ahead now seeing as it doesn't introduce
new errors.
OK.
-- >8 --
I noticed we don't implement the "unless the overriding function is
defined as deleted" wording
On 2/16/24 04:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The simple presence of ellipsis as next token after the parameter
declaration doesn't imply it is a parameter pack, it sometimes is, e.g.
if its type is a pack, but sometimes is not and in that case it acts
the same as if the next tokens were , ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907
--- Comment #47 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #46)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #43)
> > > // See discussion here:
> > > // https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571709.html
> >
On 2/16/24 14:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 04:52:20PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:48:28AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/16/24 04:14, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
DWARF5 added DW_AT_export_symbols both for use on inline namespaces (where
we emit it),
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 04:52:20PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:48:28AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 2/16/24 04:14, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > DWARF5 added DW_AT_export_symbols both for use on inline namespaces (where
> > > we emit it), but also on anonymous
'counted_by (COUNT)'
The 'counted_by' attribute may be attached to the C99 flexible
array member of a structure. It indicates that the number of the
elements of the array is given by the field named "COUNT" in the
same structure as the flexible array member. GCC uses this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110285
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-16
Ever confirmed|0
to carry the TYPE of the flexible array.
Such information is needed during tree-object-size.cc.
We cannot use the result type or the type of the 1st argument
of the routine .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE to decide the element type
of the original array due to possible type casting in the
source code.
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-ubsan.cc (get_bound_from_access_with_size): New function.
(ubsan_instrument_bounds): Handle call to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/ubsan/flex-array-counted-by-bounds-2.c: New test.
*
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-object-size.cc (access_with_size_object_size): New function.
(call_object_size): Call the new function.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-common.h: Add a new macro EXPECT.
* gcc.dg/flex-array-counted-by-3.c: New test.
Including the following changes:
* The definition of the new internal function .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE
in internal-fn.def.
* C FE converts every reference to a FAM with a "counted_by" attribute
to a call to the internal function .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE.
(build_component_ref in c_typeck.cc)
This
Hi,
This is the 6th version of the patch.
compare with the 5th version, the only difference is:
1. Add the 6th argument to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE
to carry the TYPE of the flexible array.
Such information is needed during tree-object-size.cc.
previously, we use the result type of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108562
Bug 108562 depends on bug 105755, which changed state.
Bug 105755 Summary: -Wanalyzer-null-dereference regression compiling Emacs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105755
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105755
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113961
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed you did, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109851
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|False positive va_arg when |[13/14 Regression] False
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105755
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike ---
(In reply to nightstrike from comment #5)
> If I open your godbolt links, they aren't using a Windows target compiler,
> so they aren't exercising an LLP64 target.
For instance:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105755
--- Comment #5 from nightstrike ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> Looks like this was fixed sometime in GCC 13; resolving as WORKSFORME.
>
> Feel free to reopen if you have a reproducer that triggers on a more recent
> GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109579
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109628
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113961
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
I had another change to in my local tree which affected
the second dg-error and I "fixed" it unnecessarily. I've tested with a
clean tree this time.
Tested aarch64-linux. Pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
PR libstdc++/87744
PR libstdc++/113961
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113961
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c74131e77f1a6b7afe700d3526a8992dc9744b0c
commit r14-9038-gc74131e77f1a6b7afe700d3526a8992dc9744b0c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87744
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c74131e77f1a6b7afe700d3526a8992dc9744b0c
commit r14-9038-gc74131e77f1a6b7afe700d3526a8992dc9744b0c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 11:00:34AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> This testcase was fixed by r14-5934-gf26d68d5d128c8 but we should add
> one to make sure it does not regress again.
>
> Committed as obvious after a quick test on the testcase.
>
> PR c++/97990
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97990
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f1438db419c9eb8901d1d1d7f98fb69082aec8e
commit r14-9037-g5f1438db419c9eb8901d1d1d7f98fb69082aec8e
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
This testcase was fixed by r14-5934-gf26d68d5d128c8 but we should add
one to make sure it does not regress again.
Committed as obvious after a quick test on the testcase.
PR c++/97990
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/torture/vector-struct-1.C: New test.
Signed-off-by: Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109859
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE:
On Feb 16, 2024, at 2:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> There is one special case, NVPTX, which is a TARGET_NO_REGISTER_ALLOCATION
> target. I think claiming for it that it is a lra target is strange (even
> though it effectively returns true for targetm.lra_p ()), unsure if it
> supports asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97990
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On Feb 16, 2024, at 2:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Given the recent discussions on IRC started with Andrew P. mentioning that
> an asm goto outputs test should have { target lra } and the lra effective
> target in GCC 11/12 only returning 0 for PA and in 13/14 for PA/AVR, while
> we clearly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #8 from Antoni ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> inlined_call_event's ctor should probably assert that params
> tree apparent_callee_fndecl,
> tree apparent_caller_fndecl,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111974
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 89336, which changed state.
Bug 89336 Summary: internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 87536, which changed state.
Bug 87536 Summary: Illegal recursive concept leads to compiler ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87536
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87331
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85908
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Thanks! Committed
Edwin
On 2/15/2024 9:27 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Feb 12, 2024, at 11:38 AM, Edwin Lu wrote:
There is currently no support for matching at least x lines of assembly
(only scan-assembler-times). This patch would allow setting upper or lower
bounds.
Use case: using different
1 - 100 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
