https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100762
Bug ID: 100762
Summary: [mips+msa] ICE when comparing 64 bit vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100761
Bug ID: 100761
Summary: [mips+msa] ICE when using __builtin_convertvector to
convert from u8x8 to u8x16
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97248
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson ---
SImilar issue with right shift:
typedef long a;
typedef struct {
a b __attribute__((__vector_size__(64)));
} c;
void d() {
int e;
c f, g;
f.b = g.b >> e;
}
$ mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-g++-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
actually, there are a bunch of failures from this revision:
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C -Os (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C -Os (internal compiler error)
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100760
Bug ID: 100760
Summary: [mips + msa] ICE: maximum number of generated reload
insns per insn achieved
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755
--- Comment #5 from afernandez at odyhpc dot com ---
I just tried -std=legacy but it made no difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759
Bug ID: 100759
Summary: [12 regression] ICE for g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C after
r12-1039 at gcc/options-save.c:13626
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> If I'm understanding correctly and this is an extension being deprecated,
> is there any option to push the compilation with gcc11.1 through?
Did you try -std=legcy?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, that is likely what happens, I'll debug tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755
--- Comment #3 from afernandez at odyhpc dot com ---
Sorry for the delay. The system is AArch64 and running CentOS8.3. I have 2 GCC
installations, one is 8.3.1 and the second is 11.1.0. NCEPLIBS builds with the
former but not with the second.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100656
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch seems to fix the issue:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
index 6d38ea78273..7eeef554c0f 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed downstream in my fork:
https://gitlab.com/jonathan-wakely/gcc/-/commit/18d78721bf3afaed243252a01a4f4909c17531b2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Monakov ---
Ah, does the issue arise because foo._omp_fn.0 is (before the patch) callable
in two contexts, in one it's called from host and should be 'omp target
entrypoint', and in the other it's called from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100551
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100551
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de55a48960d2f08266cba1222e233507015dd620
commit r11-8469-gde55a48960d2f08266cba1222e233507015dd620
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Burnus ---
I think the problem is:
create_omp_child_function(omp_context*, bool)
...
1916 DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl) = DECL_ATTRIBUTES (current_function_decl);
The code removes then 'omp declare simd' but not 'omp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yes, I'd agree normally it's present in the offload table, but ideally if
you're trying to stub out the call, it should not be present in the offload
table.
I think Tobias is saying that on GIMPLE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #14)
> I would break in gdb on cuModuleGetFunction and
>
> x/s $rdx
>
> to print the failing symbol (it's the third argument to the function).
>
> It seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96555
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #13)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #9)
> > not found name: 'test_d_normal._omp_fn.0.kd'
>
> I think the problem is the following:
>
> (a) working:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov ---
I would break in gdb on cuModuleGetFunction and
x/s $rdx
to print the failing symbol (it's the third argument to the function).
It seems the "inner" entrypoint (which your patch attempted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662
--- Comment #11 from ripero84 at gmail dot com ---
Thank you very much for the information and your help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #9)
> not found name: 'test_d_normal._omp_fn.0.kd'
I think the problem is the following:
(a) working:
foo()
#pragma target
bar()
Here, 'foo._omp_fn.0' as as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100724
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Could the manual entry for -fwhole-program just be amended to clarify that
> it's
> a fallback for when a linker plugin isn't available for -flto. That may be
> what it was intended to say, but it's not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #5)
> Breakpoint 1, attr_access::from_mode_char (
> c=)
> at ../../gcc/gcc/attribs.h:304
> 304 gcc_unreachable ();
This error says that is null. c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
The plus character should always be followed by a nonempty string. John, can
you please attach a translation unit to see if by chance I can reproduce with a
cross-compiler? In parallel, I wonder if there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100716
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
I'd like to revise my opinion above. dump_template_decl should never print the
template parameter list of functions. I.e. it should be 'template f()'
not 'template f()'. Because it's also declared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #8 from Gejoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Yes, __gcov_reset is supposed to be called at the beginning when an
> application wants to start
> profiling. Again, you don't need to call it manually.
But reset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Possibly a dup of PR100727?
>
> I think it is unrelated.
>
> The problem is the fix for PR 100619, sets the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
Bug ID: 100758
Summary: __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With incremental
--- gcc/omp-offload.c.jj2021-05-25 13:43:01.341137265 +0200
+++ gcc/omp-offload.c 2021-05-25 20:07:01.934506823 +0200
@@ -2696,8 +2696,16 @@ pass_omp_target_link::execute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Breakpoint 1, attr_access::from_mode_char (
c=)
at ../../gcc/gcc/attribs.h:304
304 gcc_unreachable ();
(gdb) bt
#0 attr_access::from_mode_char (
c=)
at ../../gcc/gcc/attribs.h:304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100626
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100626
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6be2c12e37b167890d68587086a2186358b64c02
commit r11-8468-g6be2c12e37b167890d68587086a2186358b64c02
Author: Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
r230324 changed the dependency for std::to_string from _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 to
_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDIO, which means it's enabled for more targets (you don't
need the full C99 math library, for example!) That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Could be, I'm bisecting it now...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk ---
I take it that means there's no need for me to continue with what Richard asked
me to do?
At any rate, it looks like this fix won't be enough for GCC 12, but that's an
issue with the environment, not GCC
/src/gcc/configure
--prefix=/data_sdb/toolchain/cc1s/arm --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-bootstrap --target=arm-eabi
Thread model: single
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210525 (experimental) (GCC)
$ cat test.c
extern int a[];
int n;
void foo(int x, _Bool b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100340
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
JFTR the Apple OSS folks comment:
"I checked with the clang team — it appears this was an unintentional
consequence of an upstream change: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75203. This
difference between debug vs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100756
Bug ID: 100756
Summary: vect: Superfluous epilog created on s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I didn't have the nvidia binary module loaded and cuda installed when doing the
light testing, now I've installed that and see
FAIL: libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/for-3.c execution test
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Lightly tested patch.
Just quick manually testing "for-3.c" (I tried -O0 and -O3):
* With nvptx offloading, it compiles + links – but at run time, I get on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755
Bug ID: 100755
Summary: Error with fortran object (v11.1.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100666
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad52d89808a947264397e920d7483090d4108f7b
commit r12-1043-gad52d89808a947264397e920d7483090d4108f7b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100754
Bug ID: 100754
Summary: Order of multiple inheritance can lead to illegal code
jump
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a5e9a58fbe27d8b8f04cd18bc6e1dd736e3cd12
commit r12-1041-g7a5e9a58fbe27d8b8f04cd18bc6e1dd736e3cd12
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50867=edit
gcc12-pr100573.patch
Lightly tested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #42 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebd5e86c0f41dc1d692f9b2b68a510b1f6835a3e
commit r12-1039-gebd5e86c0f41dc1d692f9b2b68a510b1f6835a3e
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebd5e86c0f41dc1d692f9b2b68a510b1f6835a3e
commit r12-1039-gebd5e86c0f41dc1d692f9b2b68a510b1f6835a3e
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> Looking at line 25, it doesn't show the line is hit (by giving 'r' character
> during a.out run) nor are the counter values reset for the other lines. The
> count of 4,3,2 are seen for some lines because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> So, I understand that __gcov_dump could be used only after doing all the
> testing with the application ,i.e- towards the end to get the
> profile/coverage info. Am I right?
Yes, and you don't need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99960
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99960
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59eb00c08db6683f6a69e3b9fd2743f00e187951
commit r10-9867-g59eb00c08db6683f6a69e3b9fd2743f00e187951
Author: Alex Coplan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #5 from Gejoe ---
Running the program:
./a.out
g
When g is passed, return value is 8
When
is passed, return value is 0
r
When r is passed, return value is 8
When
is passed, return value is 0
<< the program is still running,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100710
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Confirmed. Not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100710
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100753
Bug ID: 100753
Summary: Implement in_reduction clause on target construct
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #4 from Gejoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > For the second time and then onwards, __gcov_dump() invocation (by giving
> > 'g' character during the a.out run) doesn't happen.
>
> Yes, one can call __gcov_dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100724
--- Comment #5 from Dave Love ---
Thanks for the explanation.
Could the manual entry for -fwhole-program just be amended to clarify that it's
a fallback for when a linker plugin isn't available for -flto. That may be
what it was intended to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100711
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> > Even w/ canonical RTL, i think a combine splitter is also needed here, the
> > canonical RTL only helps combine/forwprop to match more possibility but
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
--- Comment #25 from Przemyslaw Wirkus ---
Yes, it was applied to GCC 11 (then trunk) but we were waiting for GCC 11
release so I can backport at least to GCC 10.
After backport I guess we can close this PR.
PS: Updated "known to work/fail".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
So is this now fixed on trunk and the GCC 11 branch? Please update the summary
and known-to-work/fail accordingly,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
Przemyslaw Wirkus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||przemyslaw.wirkus at arm dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100752
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100747
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c3202e6f8a95362384022edf5d93839682df5ba
commit r12-1034-g2c3202e6f8a95362384022edf5d93839682df5ba
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100727
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:316bdb2e8970a461f2ae1a7183262d18a72adab3
commit r12-1032-g316bdb2e8970a461f2ae1a7183262d18a72adab3
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99928
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a81735c1c8cea4323dcb912b7a8879b54aa3bc0
commit r12-1031-g3a81735c1c8cea4323dcb912b7a8879b54aa3bc0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100752
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh dear. It started to fail with r11-289. I've created Bug 100752.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100752
Bug ID: 100752
Summary: [11/12 Regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100747
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the configure scripts during build are run through
$(SHELL) $$s/$$module_srcdir/configure ...
from the toplevel makefile, so it doesn't care if it has executable permissions
or not.
Doesn't hurt to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly a dup of PR100727?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100727
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So it's fixed with
diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
index f3da1839dc5..74a5070605e 100644
--- a/gcc/calls.c
+++ b/gcc/calls.c
@@ -2397,6 +2397,7 @@ initialize_argument_information (int num_actuals
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100492
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b3852d998bd4ae68f51311441feea13103971e3
commit r11-8462-g9b3852d998bd4ae68f51311441feea13103971e3
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100519
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edd7bbe0e96a0d45d6ae142c5809ef1cae6c0999
commit r11-8465-gedd7bbe0e96a0d45d6ae142c5809ef1cae6c0999
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100513
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0a8a95003e7763ece4886e771f71385966e229b
commit r11-8464-gd0a8a95003e7763ece4886e771f71385966e229b
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100509
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3870fe246f442d795ef2270c74f56dda9d0be26c
commit r11-8463-g3870fe246f442d795ef2270c74f56dda9d0be26c
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> At this point a minimal fix is prefered - in principle the file
> should be a valid source to any C++ 11 capable host compiler, not
> just GCC. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 May 2021, harald at gigawatt dot nl wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
>
> --- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
Yes, including is enough to get the build to pass. My last point in
comment #2, however, means that that leaves things in an inconsistent state and
that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100749
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Sven Suursoho changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spam+gcc at alt dot ee
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100735
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80740
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
