https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #6 from Yongheng Chen ---
I see. I will do it for future bugs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The full compiler output is useful. Some of us use it to quickly see what part
of the compiler is affected. It also helps make sure we're reproducing the
same problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yongheng Chen from comment #3)
> It seems I overwrote Andrew Pinski's comment by mistake. Sorry about that LOL
I did not have any comment changes, only the addition of the error-recovery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #3 from Yongheng Chen ---
It seems I overwrote Andrew Pinski's comment by mistake. Sorry about that LOL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #2 from Yongheng Chen ---
Hi Martin,
I included the CMD line "gcc -o tmp poc.c" in the report but not the stack
dump. Is the stack dump necessary? I didn't include it because I think the POC
is enough to reproduce the problem and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
