https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #12 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not sure whether TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE_64BIT is the right MACRO to correctly
differentiate m32 and m64?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #11 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 50474
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50474=edit
32bit variable vec_insert
LLVM also generates store-hit-load instruction:
addi 3, 1, -16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99782
Bug ID: 99782
Summary: Compile time and memory hog w/ __int128 on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99781
Bug ID: 99781
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in partial_subreg_p, at rtl.h:3144
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 50473
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50473=edit
-fdump-tree-original for failing case
Attached the dump file of the failing case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99780
Bug ID: 99780
Summary: ICE in verify_curr_properties, at passes.c:2152
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code, lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Looking at the -fdump-tree-originals in the two cases:
The working case:
{.elem_len=10, .rank=1, .type=6});
The failing case:
D.3962 = (sizetype) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <.cbulist_ru>;
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99711
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This is interesting, compiling with the -g option for debugging.
Running a test case that is working with:
character(len=10), dimension(:), allocatable :: cbulist_ru ! explicit char
len
Breakpoint 1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99779
Bug ID: 99779
Summary: [GCC-10.1.0]A bug when assign to a pointer by function
which process the pointer inside.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #33 from Worx ---
Let me know, if you want something from me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> I wonder if the CT_RELAXED_MEMORY cases should be following
> on from CT_MEMORY rather than CT_SPECIAL_MEMORY. They're really
> normal memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99778
Bug ID: 99778
Summary: Spurious -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant on three-way
comparisons
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654
--- Comment #1 from Will Cohen ---
Jan Kratochvil at Red Hat mentioned that the DW_AT_entry_pc values looked
reasonable when -gno-as-locview-support was added to the command line. I
checked and they do look more reasonable. Does this mean an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55288
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55060
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e88ca9f42306e291d3cb2d34dd7f2b017a3c1e52
commit r11-7841-ge88ca9f42306e291d3cb2d34dd7f2b017a3c1e52
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55060
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 55060, which changed state.
Bug 55060 Summary: False un-initialized variable warnings (fixed, add testcase
to testsuite)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55060
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 54804, which changed state.
Bug 54804 Summary: -Wuninitialized fails to warn about uninitialized local union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54804
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54804
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83336
Bug 83336 depends on bug 53917, which changed state.
Bug 53917 Summary: Wuninitialized warning points to place where variable
doesn't occur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53917
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 53917, which changed state.
Bug 53917 Summary: Wuninitialized warning points to place where variable
doesn't occur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53917
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@matos-sorge.com
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53917
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99777
Bug ID: 99777
Summary: ICE in build2, at tree.c:4869 with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52523
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 52523, which changed state.
Bug 52523 Summary: Missing "uninitialized" warning (VOP, taking address of var)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52523
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 52167, which changed state.
Bug 52167 Summary: self-initialization should at least produce
use-of-uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52167
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52167
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26e80a496853b21da1886779d97ff613ccb64f9b
commit r11-7840-g26e80a496853b21da1886779d97ff613ccb64f9b
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52167
Bug 52167 depends on bug 48483, which changed state.
Bug 48483 Summary: Construct from yourself w/o warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0, 11.0, 5.1.0
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210325 (experimental) [master revision
08103e4d6ad:4e4f8ee0bf5:a29124d28253cdf603ba1977db2f09c9f233fea5] (GCC)
[688] %
[688] % gcctk -O1 -S -o small_O1.s small.c
[689] % gcctk -O3 -S -o small_O3.s small.c
[690
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44547
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b229a305091f0a9c64e5be3c1af5ef62b75e3cb
commit r11-7839-g1b229a305091f0a9c64e5be3c1af5ef62b75e3cb
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 44547, which changed state.
Bug 44547 Summary: -Wuninitialized reports false warning in nested switch
statements (missed switch optimization)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44547
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44547
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-02-24 00:00:00 |2021-3-25
Known to fail|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99672
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99672
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2132a36370e282d8c0ed0c97e5bfb952e23dbfa1
commit r11-7836-g2132a36370e282d8c0ed0c97e5bfb952e23dbfa1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93383
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wouter at voti dot nl
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99775
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99775
Bug ID: 99775
Summary: segmentation fault on template variable as template
parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4e0bdbc036644401f9de49f594b2bb16b287381
commit r11-7835-gd4e0bdbc036644401f9de49f594b2bb16b287381
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99745
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b86a6438191f720bebf880a2b932cd97d10229a
commit r11-7834-g0b86a6438191f720bebf880a2b932cd97d10229a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99331
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99331
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9efd72d28956eb79c7fca38e3c959733a3bb25bb
commit r11-7833-g9efd72d28956eb79c7fca38e3c959733a3bb25bb
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774
Bug ID: 99774
Summary: False positive from -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak in loop
(qemu:libvhost-user.c)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95622
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
I am not sure whether this is a sensible solution, but it fixes
the issue for c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-2.c ...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36823
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Bisection shows the -Wuninitialized at -O2 disappeared between r176911 and
r176920. The likely candidate is r176918.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
I tried changing TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_SUB in arm.h to:
#define TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_SUB (arm_float_abi != ARM_FLOAT_ABI_SOFT\
&& (bitmap_bit_p (arm_active_target.isa, \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 33802, which changed state.
Bug 33802 Summary: bogus "is used uninitialized" (VOPs) (inlining)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33802
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33802
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:52:53PM +, pvoytas at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
>
> --- Comment #3 from Paul A. Voytas ---
> I see what you mean--if i test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567215.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard should use the VFP registers for
passing any FP arguments so the build attribute for Tag_ABI_VFP_args should be
set to show that.
It's true that soft-float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
Xionghu, please do not write "can't" when you mean "it's difficult" or "it
hasn't been implemented" or "it's too inefficient" (such as moving the data
through memory). Please be very precise in your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I did not know whether it is implementable (in VSX or in Altivec) for 32-bit
> targets etc., all I was suggesting was what to do if it is not implementable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
Bug ID: 99773
Summary: ARM v8.1-m MVE interaction with -mfloat-abi not clear
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99772
Bug ID: 99772
Summary: New built-ins for pointer comparisons that yield a
total order
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 98942, which changed state.
Bug 98942 Summary: [C++23] Implement P1102R2 - Down with ()!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98942
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98942
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I did not know whether it is implementable (in VSX or in Altivec) for 32-bit
targets etc., all I was suggesting was what to do if it is not implementable.
If it is implementable, somebody familiar with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99764
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99765
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Stam Markianos-Wright
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1b4d742f180ff6f1e538e79e590065afe2cce6e
commit r10-9545-ga1b4d742f180ff6f1e538e79e590065afe2cce6e
Author: Stam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stam Markianos-Wright
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aac12084fc07319d5c8232c51dafa4e297bd5415
commit r11-7830-gaac12084fc07319d5c8232c51dafa4e297bd5415
Author: Stam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. as
int a[1024], b[1024];
void
foo (void)
{
#pragma omp simd
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
if (b[i] > 23) {
a[i] = b[i] + 1;
int v = 1 / 0;
}
}
(omp simd is there only to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
@doko: Can you please reduce objects and then .ii files needed to reproduce the
issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
Bug ID: 99771
Summary: Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #2)
> The above ICEs with just -O3 -march=armv8.2-a+sve.
Thank you for reporting. I reproduced it тоо. I think соме constraint was not
categorized rightly. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99751
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Maybe a nicer names:
$ cat pr99751.c
int *ptr1 = 0, **ptr2 =
int *identity(int *p)
{
return p;
}
void store_to_c(int *p)
{
*ptr2 = identity(p);
}
int main()
{
int f;
store_to_c();
if (ptr1 != )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96582
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27039
Bug 27039 depends on bug 27214, which changed state.
Bug 27214 Summary: The C frontend introduces undefined pointer overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27214
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19831
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
The original cases are all fixed but what remains is us failing to elide
void f ()
{
void *p = __builtin_malloc (1);
if (!p)
__builtin_abort ();
__builtin_free (p);
}
if that's even desirable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #34 from Matt Thompson ---
Iain,
Apologies. I forgot about this. Seeing as I'm now using GNU 10.2.0 on my
Macbook...I guess it's working.
I currently do:
../gcc-10.2.0/configure --prefix=$HOME/installed/Core/gcc-gfortran/10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
The fix was reverted by
commit de00a7bda94910835012bc7150be53b460a5c8b6
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 25 06:57:37 2021 -0700
Revert "x86: Skip ISA check for always_inline in system headers"
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99755
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41898
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly related (implementation-wise) are ideas to handle array element
contents field-sensitive but not elements, thus have for
T p[10];
fields for members of 'T' but re-use the appropriate member for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-06 10:02:19 |2021-3-25
--- Comment #5 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] printf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
--- Comment #3 from Paul A. Voytas ---
I see what you mean--if i test for rand(0)=0.d0 I do get hist with gfortran on
the EL7 machine.
But it seems like there must still be something different from older versions.
The info pages for rand() say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
