https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88348
Bug ID: 88348
Summary: ICE in pp_cxx_unqualified_id when handling pointer to
pointer to member
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88346
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
OK, good, the %e is doing its job in showing up missing cases.. And thanks for
pointing out the silly typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88346
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #4)
> Any progress on this? It really slows down test runs as it hangs twice and
> has to wait for the timeout to occur to continue.
Sorry for being slow. I am still not very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88347
Bug ID: 88347
Summary: ICE in begin_move_insn, at sched-ebb.c:175
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79593
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #33 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Dec 4 04:22:37 2018
New Revision: 266770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266770=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-03 Sandra Loosemore
PR c/59039
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88346
Bug ID: 88346
Summary: [9 Regression] Inconsistent list of CPUs supported by
the rs6000 backend after r266502
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88342
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #3 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #5 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Could you post the full config specification and what the build system is? It
seems hard to reproduce, and it is rather puzzling for a powerpc build to
trigger a check that is explicitly there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Bug ID: 88345
Summary: -Os overrides -finline-functions=N on the command line
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Never mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82716
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Mutz from comment #0)
> Here's a stripped-down example: https://godbolt.org/g/sUZxAQ
> Works with -stdlib=libc++: https://godbolt.org/g/bW4u1u
But not if you use 'struct' instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88344
Bug ID: 88344
Summary: sole attribute specification in a class silently
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
LOL, this compiles:
// P1330R0 - Changing the active member of a union inside constexpr
union Foo
{
int i;
float f;
};
constexpr int
use()
{
Foo foo{};
foo.i = 3;
foo.f = 1.2f;
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88342
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #0)
> > All,
> >
> > A colleague of mine encountered an issue with 8.2.0 (but it's also in 7.3.0
> > at least). We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45150
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45150=edit
Special case REALPART_EXPR, IMAGPART_EXPR in cxx_eval_store_expression.
Obeying the smart people. ;-)
I
1)
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
stw 30,8(1)
.cfi_offset 30, -8
ori 2,2,0
lwz 30,8(1)
addi 1,1,16
.cfi_restore 30
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
blr
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size foo,.-foo
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pkoning at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88298
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf ---
The problem appears here:
Breakpoint 1, gfc_resolve_cshift (f=0x2431950, array=0x23bc1f0,
shift=0x23bc880, dim=0x23bcce0) at ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/iresolve.c:836
836 gfc_resolve_dim_arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #18 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #17)
> Or just emit a blockage insn to avoid the undesirable code motion.
I tried that already, it doesn't affect the forward substitution - I guess it
simply assumes it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Or just emit a blockage insn to avoid the undesirable code motion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88328
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #9)
> Created attachment 45138 [details]
> QEMU traces for --with-cpu=cortex-m3 / QEMU --cpu cortex-m3
Thanks, I can reproduce this now. It fails due to sched1 scheduling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331
--- Comment #4 from mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl ---
W dniu 03.12.2018 o 21:21, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org pisze:
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Can you attach the preprocessed source as requested by
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #1)
> moving this from 71469 and noting it's a regression.
71496, even: this was the commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243532=gcc=rev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 3 20:57:14 2018
New Revision: 266766
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266766=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/64242
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c (foo, bar):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88299
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf ---
The warning was introduced in:
r260705 | janus | 2018-05-25 08:09:10 +0200 (Fri, 25 May 2018) | 16 lines
2018-05-25 Janus Weil
PR fortran/85839
* match.c (gfc_match_block_data): Call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71496
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331
--- Comment #3 from mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl ---
W dniu 03.12.2018 o 21:21, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org pisze:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
Bug ID: 88343
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] R31 is unconditionally
saved/restored on powerpc-darwin even when it's not
necessary.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331
--- Comment #2 from mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl ---
W dniu 03.12.2018 o 21:21, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org pisze:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88342
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80203
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
Is this still failing anywhere ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88341
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It needs review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88336
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
__builtin_constant_evaluated is already implemented, it just needs to be
provided with the name std::is_constant_evaluated() (and possibly adjusted for
the changes in the R2 paper).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88341
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88304
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
Created attachment 45147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45147=edit
Minimal netcdf-fortran part for the reproducer
Compile the netcdf.f90 header before the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 45146
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45146=edit
Initial patch (incomplete)
rebased experimental patch on trunk at 266733.
I think that we need to be clear about what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88342
Bug ID: 88342
Summary: Possible bug with IEEE_POSITIVE_INF and
-ffpe-trap=overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88341
Bug ID: 88341
Summary: taking norm() of complex variable fails to compile
with -std=c++11
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88340
Bug ID: 88340
Summary: Implement P0019R8, C++20 std::atomic_ref.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88339
Bug ID: 88339
Summary: Implement P0515R3, C++20 three-way comparison operator
support .
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88338
--- Comment #1 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We may be able/probably should? support both TS and std.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
powerpc64 for sure BE and possibly LE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88338
Bug ID: 88338
Summary: Implement P0898R3, C++20 concepts library.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337
Bug ID: 88337
Summary: Implement P1002R1, P1327R1, P1330R0, C++20 relaxations
of constexpr restrictions.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88336
Bug ID: 88336
Summary: Implement P0595R2, C++20 std::is_constant_evaluated
(compiler magic library tool).
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What is your target? I checked this on linux-x86_64 (native build). I don't
see the complaint about line 15 in that run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Bug ID: 88335
Summary: Implement P1073R3, C++20 immediate functions
(consteval).
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
Bug ID: 88334
Summary: Implement P0482R6, C++20 char8_t.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88333
Bug ID: 88333
Summary: ice in asan_emit_stack_protection, at asan.c:1574
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
Bug ID: 88332
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.dg/Wattributes-10.c fails starting
with r265728
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
able-fully-dynamic-string --prefix=/home/ma/m/target
--with-sysroot=/home/ma/m/target
Thread model: win32
gcc version 9.0.0 20181203 (experimental) (GCC)
I get errors (it depend of what module x265 compile first):
f:/x265/source/encoder/slicetype.cpp: In member function 'void
x265_12bit::Lookahe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88330
Bug ID: 88330
Summary: Implement P0542R5, P1289R1, C++20 contract based
programming.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88329
Bug ID: 88329
Summary: Implement C++20 std concepts.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88328
Bug ID: 88328
Summary: ICE in resolve_tag_format, at fortran/io.c:1641
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88327
Bug ID: 88327
Summary: Implement P0515R3, P0905R1, P1120R0, C++20 std
concepts.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88326
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
This variant compiles and runs :
$ cat z4.f90
program p
character, parameter :: x(3) = ['a','b','c']
character :: y(1) = transfer('x', x)
print *, y
end
$ gfortran-9-20181202 z4.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88326
Bug ID: 88326
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6085
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88325
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88325
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88321
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
20181203 (experimental) [trunk revision 266735] (GCC)
$
$ g++tk -std=c++2a -c tmp.cpp
tmp.cpp:6:34: internal compiler error: in make_typename_type, at cp/decl.c:3816
6 | template < typename T > A < T >::A < T > () {}
| ^~~
0x7573fd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88101
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88297
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88297
>
> --- Comment #5 from michael.ploujnikov at oracle dot com ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > So before the patch we were just lucky,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
> > Suggestion on line 5 of a variable which is acutally the return value, and
> > doesn't exist yet. Better to only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88297
--- Comment #5 from michael.ploujnikov at oracle dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So before the patch we were just lucky, right? When seeing the patches I
> wondered whether we instead want to add a clone_count member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88102
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> I wonder about following, on i686-linux it FAILs with older trunk and
> succeeds with current trunk. Without the (useless) stack realignment the
> right value of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88324
Bug ID: 88324
Summary: segfault with constexpr lambda in template arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
> Suggestion on line 5 of a variable which is acutally the return value, and
> doesn't exist yet. Better to only suggest alternative as variables that
> exist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #1)
> Created attachment 45144 [details]
> test case
Reproduced here, as it's tiny and more convenient in a comment than as an
attachment:
// g++ -Wall -O2 -o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88321
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Update: there is workaround for this, pass
"--with-ld=/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-ld --with-as=/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as" to
configure script.
I also tried to use "--with-ld=x86_64-w64-mingw32-ld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug ID: 88323
Summary: implement C++20 language features.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88322
Bug ID: 88322
Summary: Implement C++20 library features.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov ---
Typo: PR 42491 should have said PR 43491.
Hopefully more obviously-broken testcase with an inline function:
static inline void
ff(int *o)
{
register int a asm("eax");
a = 1;
asm("add %1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87919
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 3 17:10:50 2018
New Revision: 266761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266761=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/87919
* options.c (SET_FLAG, SET_BITFLAG, SET_BITFLAG2):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov ---
With -fno-tree-fre it's still broken.
How long will GCC play this sort of whack-a-mole with ad-hoc restrictions to
gimple optimizations (PR 29877, PR 42491, PR 61572)?
And this:
> for fixed registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88321
Bug ID: 88321
Summary: Crosscompiled gcc does not use precompiled as
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81266
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 45144
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45144=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
Bug ID: 88320
Summary: GCC suggests variables that don't exist yet
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88319
Bug ID: 88319
Summary: all-target and all-target-libitm build targets fail
for libitm.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88318
Bug ID: 88318
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/independent-cloneids-1.c fails on
big endian
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88313
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88317
Bug ID: 88317
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in split_reg ->
bitmap_set_bit -> bitmap_list_link_element)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 08:37:32AM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Libgomp certainly does respect
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
