https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #6 from Andy Ross ---
No, I just had a thinko (hur dur stack grows down, sigh) and jumped too quickly
once I thought I had it. All the circumstantial evidence is pointing at a
compiler bug here, but this smoking gun isn't. I'll
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20220630 on riscv64-linux-gnu, using binutils trunk/2.39. Not
seen in the same environment building GCC 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106149
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-01
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
--- Comment #10 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> (In reply to luoxhu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I detected the issue on tests/tfpif.c with the upgrade of Debian's package
gcc-snapshot from 1:20220126-1 to 1:20220630-1 (it doesn't occur on
tests/tfpif.c with gcc-snapshot 1:20220126-1). However
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Let me also file the other bug about the deconstructor for anonymous unions
> since that is a different issue.
Actually I take that back, the anonymous union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incorrect error for |[DR 2084] union with more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #8 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
init-regs:
(insn 13 8 17 2 (set (reg:V4SI 141)
(vec_select:V4SI (vec_concat:V8SI (reg/v:V4SI 135 [ R2 ])
(reg/v:V4SI 133 [ R0 ]))
(parallel [
tion 'tst':
tfpif.c:31:9: warning: 'emax' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
31 | f2 (emax);
| ^
tfpif.c:17:11: note: 'emax' was declared here
17 | int emax;
| ^~~~
$ gcc-snapshot --version
gcc (Debian 20220630-1) 13.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC and ICC accept it though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang also rejects it:
:21:4: error: defaulting this default constructor would delete it after
its first declaration
S::S() = default;
^
:17:8: note: default constructor of 'S' is implicitly deleted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ideally the middle end should optimize it. But until then, I wonder if the
front end could detect when a non-trivial ctor is just doing zero-init of every
member, and fold it early.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106154
Bug ID: 106154
Summary: Error when missing a : inside an inline-asm could be
improved
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45358
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see any below accesses either.
Right before the assembler code you posted has:
sub sp, sp, #32
So
Maybe I am missing something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #3 from Andy Ross ---
Created attachment 53231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53231=edit
Preprocessed source file (gzipped)
Sorry, I thought I attached it with the submission. Looks like it got kicked
out for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
--- Comment #1 from Andy Ross ---
Just submitted the same code at godbolt and their "ARM64 gcc trunk" build shows
the same behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106153
Bug ID: 106153
Summary: Generated arm64 code writing below stack pointer
without updating SP
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #2)
> I guess that's like:
>
> C++11/14: neither is an aggregate (base class).
> C++17: both are aggregates.
> C++20: Bar is an aggregate, but Foo is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
I guess that's like:
C++11/14: neither is an aggregate (base class).
C++17: both are aggregates.
C++20: Bar is an aggregate, but Foo is not (user-declared constructor).
But that really shouldn't affect the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106006
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bcab64467d7393d69bf5abd7b2a0aba22d2896e
commit r12-8531-g6bcab64467d7393d69bf5abd7b2a0aba22d2896e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26ea506a1e8719f8b1f559e70bee9f5d3392eb37
commit r12-8530-g26ea506a1e8719f8b1f559e70bee9f5d3392eb37
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105225
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105813
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb4336f546b2a770717af608c79b4d46f45ef7c2
commit r12-8529-geb4336f546b2a770717af608c79b4d46f45ef7c2
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105225
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:762fd5e5547e464e25b4bee435db6df4eda0de90
commit r13-1371-g762fd5e5547e464e25b4bee435db6df4eda0de90
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106152
Bug ID: 106152
Summary: New ICE compiling template expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Bug ID: 106151
Summary: Inconsistent optimization when defaulting aggregate vs
non-aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103693
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103138
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103137
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
commit r13-1370-g4c233cabbe388a6b8957c1507e129090e9267ceb
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106150
Bug ID: 106150
Summary: Incorrect error for defaulted anonymous union member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106149
Bug ID: 106149
Summary: [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C had
bogus errors after r13-1366-g1eef21ccfa5988
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106148
Bug ID: 106148
Summary: RFE: warn about =- typos
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(The original insns, before this combination.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is wrong there? It isn't obvious. You may need to show insns 188 and 199
in non-slim form, "slim" is very lossy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106129
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-30
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106129
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a8ee37a3325f1009034245676ef4e482c0444a2
commit r13-1368-g8a8ee37a3325f1009034245676ef4e482c0444a2
Author: Joseph Myers
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106133
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104490
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldalessandro at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106084
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106145
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like a binutils bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c96b14a19a9e6c365eacc59868a866b99f9786d
commit r13-1365-g6c96b14a19a9e6c365eacc59868a866b99f9786d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW std::tuple_element_t<1000, tuple> takes 97% less
memory and takes 80% less time with my patch. I just need to fix a problem with
debuginfo generation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Romeo ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Vittorio Romeo from comment #6)
> > worthwhile to keep the same name as Clang for compatibility,
>
> No, that's not an option. Clang's is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vittorio Romeo from comment #6)
> worthwhile to keep the same name as Clang for compatibility,
No, that's not an option. Clang's is a built-in template, GCC's can't be (it
would require
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #5)
> Yeah, __is_same builtin beats custom unique-id comparisons, but it is
> available only since gcc-10 so unavailable for me.
GCC has had __is_same_as since 6.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #14 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Possible implementation idea: look at state merging when building the exploded
graph: if we're merging an identical state in a loop, with no variants, then
complain.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Romeo ---
Thank you, Jonathan, for looking into this. I feel like it might be worthwhile
to keep the same name as Clang for compatibility, or maybe talk to some Clang
developers and see if there can be an agreement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147
Bug ID: 106147
Summary: RFE: -fanalyzer could complain about some cases of
infinite loops and infinite recursion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106146
Bug ID: 106146
Summary: [instcombine] a redundant movprfx insn compare to llvm
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103413
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> I'm not subscribed to fortran@ or gcc-patches@.
> Even If I subscribe to a list what good would it
> do to send an email? Someone might glance at
> it. Then what? I cannot commit as I don't use
> git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Yeah, __is_same builtin beats custom unique-id comparisons, but it is available
only since gcc-10 so unavailable for me.
Recently I discovered this one (only works for unique types), and it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106145
Bug ID: 106145
Summary: [12/13 Regression] /usr/bin/ld: libcommon.a(input.o):
copy relocation against non-copyable protected symbol
`__cxa_pure_virtual' on aarch64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I would prefer a pair of similar names involving "type at index" and "index
> of type" or something like that. Or "index to type" and "tpe to index".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #2)
> Please consider also adding a builtin for fetching index of type in type
> list.
I am already considering it and it's one of the reasons I don't like the name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106144
Bug ID: 106144
Summary: wide_int shifted_mask() and mask() do not agree
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106114
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
>This is less likely to occur in GCC12 as less places rewrite the IL under the
>covers, but it should still be applied ot that branch just in case.
Should the bug be reopened for now then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105782
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100157
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104862
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Chris Packham from comment #13)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > Please provide info about how libsanitizer end up building with GCC 11.3 and
> > MIPS64 (such a combination is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105930
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00193676a5a3e7e50e1fa6646bb5abb5a7b2acbb
commit r13-1362-g00193676a5a3e7e50e1fa6646bb5abb5a7b2acbb
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> But the other suggestion could be to use std::is_void_v instead (at
> least for C++17 and later), no?
Indeed :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang gives a different error, but no more helpful:
v.C:2:34: error: expected '(' for function-style cast or type construction
static_assert( std::is_void, "void is void is void" );
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106143
Bug ID: 106143
Summary: Add fix-it for missing ::value on trait with
std::integral_constant base
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is in processing
x = MEM[(const struct Pair &)_11];
_47 = MEM[(const int &) + 4];
where we when visiting the def for 'x' continue the lookup with an
effective MEM[(const struct Pair
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #5 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems combine wrongly merged two vec_select instructions:
Trying 188 -> 199:
188: r343:V4SI=vec_select(vec_concat(r168:V4SI,r338:V4SI),parallel)
REG_DEAD r338:V4SI
REG_DEAD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #4 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced to:
#include
extern "C" void *memcpy(void *, const void *, unsigned long);
typedef __attribute__((altivec(vector__))) unsigned native_simd_type;
union {
native_simd_type V;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106142
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106131
>
> --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
> Started with
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106142
Bug ID: 106142
Summary: [13 Regression] Wrong code on pcre-8.45, minimized
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106114
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
97 matches
Mail list logo
