to be a reference to the symbol
__scalar_func_class_MOD___vtab_scalar_func_class_Scalar_func
from file1.o
This error is present in all versions I've tried from 7.5, 8.3, to 9.3.
$ cat gfortran-20200402-file1.f90
module scalar_func_class
type, abstract :: scalar_func
end type
end module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94393
--- Comment #4 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #3)
> There are two parts to fixing this PR.
> 1) We can do better in the sequences generated for some constants.
> 2) rs6000_rtx_costs needs to be accurate, so that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> The testcase builds for me now, but this is Martin's code
that's questionable :-) Git blame points correctly to me but before
new IPA-SRA the assert used to be:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #18 from David Binderman ---
For this C code:
a() {
short *b;
short c;
long long *d = a;
for (;;) {
long long *e = a;
(*d *= *e - c) / *b ?: (*b = 0);
}
}
on this week's raspberry pi C cross compiler, with flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94315
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48175|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94462
Bug ID: 94462
Summary: ICE in duplicate_decls, at cp/decl.c:1456
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85982
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #6)
> On 4/2/20 12:37 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > (In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85982
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Fritz Reese
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86f7dbd055daee625c11f9252214ce4f96ac
commit r9-8445-g86f7dbd055daee625c11f9252214ce4f96ac
Author: Fritz Reese
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85982
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Fritz Reese
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f722c80a63cf0283acb7f7008c7a145293275d43
commit r8-10158-gf722c80a63cf0283acb7f7008c7a145293275d43
Author: Fritz Reese
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48175=edit
un-reduced pre-processed on x86_64-linux
working on reducing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85982
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Fritz Reese :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0cd74f3588928e22c08003c643c91340f555785e
commit r10-7525-g0cd74f3588928e22c08003c643c91340f555785e
Author: Fritz Reese
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
This seems to affect sse3 intrinsics as well:
$ gcc-10 testcase-min0.i -w
testcase-min0.i: In function 'foo0':
testcase-min0.i:15:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
15 | }
| ^
(insn 28 27 29 2 (set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94461
Bug ID: 94461
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294
with __builtin_ia32_pmuludq() and -mno-sse2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94459
--- Comment #2 from Domani Hannes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Looking through DW_TAG_const_type seems insufficient to me, can't there be
> other qualifications (at least DW_TAG_volatile_type, perhaps in various
> orders)?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94460
Bug ID: 94460
Summary: wrong code with __builtin_ia32_phsubw256() or
__builtin_ia32_phsubd256()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> No. I guess Eric (Cc'ed) is in a better position to answer that.
Same as for PowerPC: look at the function_ok_for_sibcall predicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94457
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter_foelsche at mentor dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 4/2/20 12:37 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
>
> --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
>> Oh, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
> Oh, it is from the template specialization hash table. I suggest making
> that very poor to increase collisions:
>
> pt.c:
> static hashval_t
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82099
Ed Catmur changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ed at catmur dot uk
--- Comment #6 from Ed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94459
Bug ID: 94459
Summary: Missing c++ debug information for 'auto&' return type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92676
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92676
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b90061c6ec090c6b41a44987c646c828e5165298
commit r10-7523-gb90061c6ec090c6b41a44987c646c828e5165298
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91956
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b90061c6ec090c6b41a44987c646c828e5165298
commit r10-7523-gb90061c6ec090c6b41a44987c646c828e5165298
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94378
--- Comment #7 from Simon Marchi ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> Thanks Simon. The second diagnostic definitely looks like a false positive;
> am not sure about the first. Please can you file a separate bug about this.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94458
Bug ID: 94458
Summary: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when returning a
heap-allocated struct by value holding a
heap-allocated pointer
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94457
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94457
--- Comment #1 from Peter Foelsche ---
g++ 7.4 works fine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94457
Bug ID: 94457
Summary: using ~VariableName in trailing return type deduction
does not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75efe9cb1f8938a713ce540dc3b27bc2afcd3fae
commit r10-7522-g75efe9cb1f8938a713ce540dc3b27bc2afcd3fae
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94392
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b0b6303dde0c32d936926de45b54cfe508fa677
commit r9-8444-g4b0b6303dde0c32d936926de45b54cfe508fa677
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94206
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b1087f8dc7505997dc475b554b5b86a06c78d69
commit r9-8443-g4b1087f8dc7505997dc475b554b5b86a06c78d69
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The DW_TAG_imported_unit are now gone for GCC 10. So can we consider this
fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54af95767e887d63dc332731738e642536d87a48
commit r10-7521-g54af95767e887d63dc332731738e642536d87a48
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 92264, which changed state.
Bug 92264 Summary: [10 Regression] Compile time hog in 521.wrf_r with -Ofast
-march=znver2 -g since r276318
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94401
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81ce375d1fdd99f9d93b00f4895eab74c3d8b54a
commit r10-7519-g81ce375d1fdd99f9d93b00f4895eab74c3d8b54a
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Thu Apr 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 94364, which changed state.
Bug 94364 Summary: 505.mcf_r is 8% faster when compiled with
-mprefer-vector-width=128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 94364, which changed state.
Bug 94364 Summary: 505.mcf_r is 8% faster when compiled with
-mprefer-vector-width=128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #43 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42)
> Is that good enough to mark this PR as resolved? In #c0 you said before
> Richard's change it took ~200s, which is more than 2m21s, though it is
> unclear if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94455
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Not compiler, but a missing library feature that was introduced in a more
recent version than what is bundled with gdc.
It could be backported for convenience, but if it can wait until after gcc-10,
then I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #13 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Khem Raj from comment #11)
> this patch seems to be causing gcc ICE on ARM when compiling lz4 sources in
> kernel, lz4, vlc almost identical ICE is seen
>
> attached is the test case please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is that good enough to mark this PR as resolved? In #c0 you said before
Richard's change it took ~200s, which is more than 2m21s, though it is unclear
if those 141s are with checking compiler or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #41 from Martin Liška ---
The current master does:
$ time gfortran module_configure.fppized.f90 -c -march=znver2 -std=legacy
-fconvert=big-endian -fno-openmp -Ofast -march=znver2 -g
...
real2m21.190s
user2m20.487s
sys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |ipa
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #11 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
Thank you, I'm glad to see new ideas and some discussion.
> On the testcase itself
>
> diff --git a/gcc/modulo-sched.c b/gcc/modulo-sched.c
> index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
--- Comment #12 from Khem Raj ---
Created attachment 48170
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48170=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
Khem Raj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #22 from Khem Raj ---
yes you are right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94456
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94456
Bug ID: 94456
Summary: ICE in aarch64/sve/pr87815.c since r10-7491
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94455
Bug ID: 94455
Summary: no [] operator overload for type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See also PR94044 for this, including a patch to do so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
there's a gist here:
https://gist.github.com/jwakely/e131d3a268a78764458186eff02f29ec
with Jonathan's valgrind session and some debug output from one case where I
managed to catch the fail under a debugger.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #40 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86c924113208f58fdda24078c9cc9285ee8000cd
commit r10-7516-g86c924113208f58fdda24078c9cc9285ee8000cd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #6 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have also identified that this only goes wrong in O2 or higher. And it
happens sometime between tailcall optimization pass 1 and 2. But there's loads
of passes in between.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Makes me wonder if hot/cold splitting should use a special jump instruction
for crossing jumps which we could fixup/split very late so we see
(parallel
(set reg (label_ref ..))
(set pc (reg))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #39 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c0fa3ecf70d199af18785702e9e0548fd3ab793
commit r10-7515-g2c0fa3ecf70d199af18785702e9e0548fd3ab793
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94450
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I guess the more correct DWARF would be to have the 13d DIE include
> DW_AT_declaration?
Well, currently the debug info contains two concrete symbols, one with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Bug ID: 94454
Summary: ICE 'canonical types differ for identical types'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Pilot error.
loop->header is in the cold partition, both latch sources are as well,
the loop entry source is in the hot partition. We're correctly
redirecting that from hot -> cold to hot -> cold state so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Unfortunately I can't reproduce on todays trunk, will try rewiding backwards
> to the reporting time to have a closer look.
Strange, I can (tried r10-7514).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
With something like:
diff --git a/benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
b/benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
index 05cad501..ad79ddae 100755
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94452
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So let's try to address this in cfgloop.c - we're likely facing the situation
of
header:
...
if (...) goto latch1;
latch2:
goto header;
latch1: // in cold section
goto header;
where latch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah...
So far I have checked that 'gimplify_call_expr' creates the right gimple, and
up until 'gimplify_modify_expr' I can verify it does by using
gimple_call_fntype .
Though at expansion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah...
So far I have checked that 'gimplify_call_expr' creates the right gimple, and
up until 'gimplify_modify_expr' I can verify it does by using
gimple_call_fntype .
Though at expansion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #7)
> I'm seeing the same failure on Solaris/SPARC (32 and 64-bit).
Do you have any info on why the tail-call fails there?
(e.g. is it not possible to make an indirect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48169=edit
qsort patch
I'm sending spec_qsort patch we use. I'm going to prepare a patch that will
revert this and add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94439
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94453
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94445
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
I also checked that arm_handle_cmse_nonsecure_call correctly duplicates the
type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Khem Raj from comment #20)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #18)
> > The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be64fc4cab7facee309447302b6ee7616dfe60b4
commit r9-8442-gbe64fc4cab7facee309447302b6ee7616dfe60b4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df562b12d90699c20923f91df48eed08ebcb572e
commit r10-7514-gdf562b12d90699c20923f91df48eed08ebcb572e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94435
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66e327517b10a19690a470c8dccfa363ba061022
commit r10-7513-g66e327517b10a19690a470c8dccfa363ba061022
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
