https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99610
--- Comment #2 from Christian Schüler ---
gcc version 8.4.0 (Ubuntu 8.4.0-1ubuntu1~18.04)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99610
--- Comment #1 from Christian Schüler ---
There is a workaround
declaring the function Hash with trailing return will make the error go away.
template< typename X >
auto Hash( const X ) const -> unsigned
{ ... }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99610
Bug ID: 99610
Summary: GCC thinks member function template is a deduction
guide
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99496
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Nathan,
I think you didn't push the branch that is on?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99609
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=99601
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1973beaf92c629f26df98eff33ab1bce7f3ea4ef
commit r11-7682-g1973beaf92c629f26df98eff33ab1bce7f3ea4ef
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99609
Bug ID: 99609
Summary: Pure Function that has a Variable with Value Attribute
that is modified
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99363
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Summary|[11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50391
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50391=edit
Short reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Thanks Vladimir. It is indeed a problem in LRA (or triggered by it).
We have
8: {[r121:DI+low(unspec[`*.LANCHOR0',%2:DI]
47+0x92a4)]=asm_operands;clobber
so this is an offset that is too big for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99608
--- Comment #3 from freezer at posteo dot de ---
In my opinion the current behavior is somehow inconsistent since the carets are
displayed for included files.
Example:
// test.cpp
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
return 0;
}
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99608
--- Comment #2 from freezer at posteo dot de ---
That's too bad. For my use case it would be more efficient if I passed the file
directly to gcc through stdin. There is really no way to change this, maybe
through an option?
With clang this works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99172
gcc-user at riseup dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99608
Bug ID: 99608
Summary: gcc doesn't print diagnostics carets when file is
passed through stdin
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
--- Comment #9 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I now built gcc with and without the patch from attachment 50390 to find more
broken kernel configurations and verify that they are all fixed. So far, all
the broken configurations are fixed by the patch,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99131
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc doesn't detect missing |gcc doesn't detect missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Note heuristically 0xe8ffc000 isn't likely such an offset from a NULL
> pointer object because the object would be quite large.
>
> The diagnostic could maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99601
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #1)
> The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:770d3487ef18a71f65626c182625889eee29f580
There is a typo in the selector:
+// {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #6)
> I figured out the qnx4 warning in the end: https://godbolt.org/z/hvqjr3
The false positive is a known problem caused by redundancy elimination (the
FRE/PRE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50390
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50390=edit
gcc11-pr99600.patch
Untested fix. I'm certainly not proud of that, but I don't see easy and clean
and inexpensive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99601
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
fix the builtin fails:
770d3487ef1 2021-03-15 | c++: Fix 2 testcases [PR 99601]
I'm not seeing the iostream fail thought
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99601
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:770d3487ef18a71f65626c182625889eee29f580
commit r11-7679-g770d3487ef18a71f65626c182625889eee29f580
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99493
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Looks like you can get away by instead passing around a pointer to the address
of the template parameter object: https://godbolt.org/z/o3Paz1.
```C++
struct A{};
templateconstexpr const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or emit a noop move insn (or something else that will be optimized away soon,
e.g. during DCE) in between the ASHIFT and following insn in
ix86_split_lea_for_addr.
A problem with remembering the INSN_UID of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99496
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Nathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jakub at redhat dot com|uros at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99607
Bug ID: 99607
Summary: [11 regression] new test case gcc.dg/pr98099.c in
r11-5706 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99586
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99571
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91319
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91319
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 99566 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99566
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
```
: In member function 'int& A::x()':
:6:23: warning: this condition has identical branches
[-Wduplicated-branches]
6 | int& x() { return 0 ? a : b; }
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99172
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Caroline Tice :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2be82058fb40f3ae891c68d185ff53e07f14f45
commit r11-7678-gc2be82058fb40f3ae891c68d185ff53e07f14f45
Author: Caroline Tice
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
--- Comment #4 from Arnd Bergmann ---
$ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-11 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-11
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc-cross/arm-linux-gnueabihf/11/lto-wrapper
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
Configured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99047
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:541840b891d61ea70cddd046c96698bb70d7f52c
commit r11-7677-g541840b891d61ea70cddd046c96698bb70d7f52c
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98704
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:020b286c769f4dc8a6b45491351f6bc2e69d7a7f
commit r11-7676-g020b286c769f4dc8a6b45491351f6bc2e69d7a7f
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, just to document what GCC 10 does:
(insn 38 37 15 3 (set (reg:DI 0 ax [orig:84 iftmp.1_3 ] [84])
(plus:DI (mult:DI (reg:DI 0 ax [orig:84 iftmp.1_3 ] [84])
(const_int 4 [0x4]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98480
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26e0eb1071e318728bcd33f28d055729ac48792c
commit r11-7675-g26e0eb1071e318728bcd33f28d055729ac48792c
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96749
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed8198461735f9b5b3c2cbe50f9913690ce4b4ca
commit r11-7674-ged8198461735f9b5b3c2cbe50f9913690ce4b4ca
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Please run:
$ gcc -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced it too and started to work on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
This patch restores the optimization of _b_c_p on trunk (and hides the issue
again).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99415d0f18716deeaa8d80e929b1337968cdfa23
commit r11-7671-g99415d0f18716deeaa8d80e929b1337968cdfa23
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99604
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Doesn't reproduce with
make check-libstdc++-v3 RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-m32
conformance.exp=insert_vs_emplace.cc"
but appeared in a full (parallel) make check. Running the command in
valgrind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99606
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99606
Bug ID: 99606
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ld.bfd: DWARF error: could not find
abbrev number 64 since r10-7521-g54af95767e887d63
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Paul, thanks for the quick response, I opened a new one, PR99602. Please close
this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> I confirm that with that patch our code compiles again, however, more or
> less all functionality fails because of runtime errors about
> Fortran runtime error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97927
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97927
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a14691e924ea4a8277ea36df08b2f5359082bf62
commit r10-9444-ga14691e924ea4a8277ea36df08b2f5359082bf62
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50389=edit
First (large) reproducer to play with, reducing atm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99605
Bug ID: 99605
Summary: [11 regress] new test case
g++.dg/modules/builtin-3_a.C fails for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99604
Bug ID: 99604
Summary: GC related ICE in
23_containers/vector/modifiers/insert_vs_emplace.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99603
Bug ID: 99603
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in libstdc++ tests due to module
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Bug ID: 99602
Summary: [11 regression] runtime error: pointer actual argument
not associated
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99601
Bug ID: 99601
Summary: [11 regression] g++.dg/modules/iostream-1_b.C on
x86_64 with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Before r11-6708 it was using different patterns - ashl3_signed - and
those
don't accept immediate CONST_VECTOR at all, while mve_vshlq_ does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
--- Comment #1 from Arnd Bergmann ---
https://godbolt.org/z/z7h7r3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99600
Bug ID: 99600
Summary: [11 regression] out of memory for simple test case
(x86 -march=atom)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #4)
> I have updated the test in the initial description to call intrinsics, added
> relevant dg-* directives. Testing with several configurations under progress.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92782
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93660
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-March/055816.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
C test (for -O2 too):
char e[37540];
struct A { int c; } d;
void
bar (int n)
{
__asm__("" : : "r" (e));
}
void
foo (void)
{
__asm__("stw %1, %0" : "=o" (d.c) : "r" (0));
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] internal|[11 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99514
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99529
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
Bug ID: 99599
Summary: Concepts requirement falsely reporting recursion,
breaks tag_invoke pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98858
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I confirm that with that patch our code compiles again, however, more or less
all functionality fails because of runtime errors about
Fortran runtime error: Pointer actual argument '' is not associated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99563
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99598
Bug ID: 99598
Summary: Commits are not transferred to bugzilla
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99484
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99424
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99483
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99482
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 99238, which changed state.
Bug 99238 Summary: [modules] internal compiler error: segmentation fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99238
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99238
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 99481, which changed state.
Bug 99481 Summary: [modules] ICE tree check: expected template_decl, have
function_decl in decl_value, at cp/module.cc:7938
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99481
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99528
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexander.lelyakin@googlema
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99481
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99484
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure.
One interesting question is whether there are *.o objects with multiple
.debug_line_str sections (but even if there are, shouldn't the linker merge
them?).
So primary suspect here is the linker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98834
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So for the missed optimization we run into
/* 5) For aggregate copies translate the reference through them if
the copy kills ref. */
else if (data->vn_walk_kind == VN_WALKREWRITE
...
/*
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
