https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #60 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #59)
> You either do a define_split (splitting the above ior thing into the two
> insns you want, during combine itself), or you do a define_insn_and_split,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93171
Bug ID: 93171
Summary: rldimi is sometimes not produced because combine gets
in the way
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. Because
> > b::c's field h's constructor is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The relevant rule is http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.constexpr#7 but that whole
subclause is new since C++03 :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93170
Bug ID: 93170
Summary: [10 Regression] wrong code due to use of a
call-clobbered register
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #58 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #39)
> We've actually got an RMW insn when combine starts. But...
> Trying 17, 7 -> 13:
>17: r92:DI=r95:DI
> REG_DEAD r95:DI
> 7:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93165
--- Comment #5 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> The compiler has no way of knowing ahead of time that you will be evaluating
> the result on random data; for mostly-sorted arrays branching is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. Because
> b::c's field h's constructor is not constexr. If that is the case, then
> should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Yes, that makes sense. We should do it both during merging and during
> instrumentation. If we choose a drop level equal to 10^2 or 10^3 we should
> not probably introduce a divergence.
Instrumentation is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93161
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Once a proposal is approved for inclusion in the working draft any further
changes are made to the content in the draft, not the proposal. The original
proposal is of historical interest only, what matters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93161
--- Comment #2 from Wesley Shillingford ---
Thanks for the swift reply.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> That paper is more than two years old. The current working draft does
> specify the equality operators, e.g. [cmp.strongord]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
>
> So the histogram of destinations is indeed greatly dominated by one
> estination but there are very many others (not all are listed since I
> started dropping them).
>
> One way to make reproducible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93161
--- Comment #4 from Wesley Shillingford ---
Great, thanks for the confirmation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #59 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #58)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #39)
> > Failed to match this instruction:
> > (set (reg/i:DI 0 x0)
> > (ior:DI (and:DI (reg:DI 95)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93155
Tobias Loew changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166
Bug ID: 93166
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in get_info_about_necessary_edges,
at ipa-cp.c:4137 since r278893
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One another ICE for existing test-suite:
$ gfortran
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dependency_58.f90 -O3
-fwrapv -floop-nest-optimize
during GIMPLE pass: graphite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
--- Comment #12 from Arseny Solokha ---
I believe this PR can be closed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I want to say b::c::c is not a valid constexpr constructor. Because
b::c's field h's constructor is not constexr. If that is the case, then
should be accepts invalid code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93168
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93165
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> So perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I'd say a
> __builtin_branchless_select(c, a, b) (guaranteed to live throughout
> optimization pipeline as a non-branchy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jan 6 09:13:15 2020
New Revision: 279895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279895=gcc=rev
Log:
Mark param_max_combine_insns with Optimization keyword.
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
Bug ID: 93169
Summary: [10 regression] Variable incorrectly put into readonly
section.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93168
Bug ID: 93168
Summary: Error messages are full of control code garbage
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93168
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The actual control stuff is eaten by bugzilla, but it makes just as little
sense like this. There is an escape before the ] I think, but it messes up
the display (in different and interesting ways
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93167
Bug ID: 93167
Summary: [graphite] One another ICE with isl-0.22
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93167
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93165
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93161
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83411
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > So finding
> > a point like your 'loop' and using flatten attribute can guarantee the
> > call-chain is fully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93172
Bug ID: 93172
Summary: with AVX512 masked mov assigning zero can use {z}
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #61 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #60)
> NOTICE how bfi1_1 uses one rlwimi while bfi1 has rlwinm followed by or but
> could just used rlwimi . This is a generic problem of combine wanting to
> use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93170
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93173
Bug ID: 93173
Summary: "error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes" and "internal
compiler error: verify_gimple failed"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70928
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93128
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Joel Holdsworth from comment #5)
> I found that if I make modified versions of the intrinsics in arm_neon.h
> that are designed more along the lines of the x86_64 SSE intrinsics defined
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79592
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Jan 6 15:22:54 2020
New Revision: 279903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279903=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/79592
* g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-4.C: Add expected error.
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92991
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369
--- Comment #28 from Toni Neubert ---
Thank you very much again for your fast help. Your patch works for this test
case.
I have another test case which fails. (Maybe more..., I am sorry).
//main.cpp: in ‘constexpr’ expansion of ‘test3()’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93162
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12333
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93175
Bug ID: 93175
Summary: ICE involving nested parameterized derived types
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79592
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Jan 6 15:22:02 2020
New Revision: 279902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279902=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/79592 adjust testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005
--- Comment #4 from Joel Holdsworth ---
Results for clang and MSVC are similar:
clang trunk:
foo(__simd128_int32_t):
push{r11, lr}
mov r11, sp
sub sp, sp, #24
bfc sp, #0, #4
mov r0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005
--- Comment #5 from Joel Holdsworth ---
I found that if I make modified versions of the intrinsics in arm_neon.h that
are designed more along the lines of the x86_64 SSE intrinsics defined with a
simple pointer dereference, then gcc does the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93130
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Confirmed. check_return_expr can't use convert_for_initialization to test
whether to treat the returned lvalue as an rvalue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93129
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005
--- Comment #7 from Joel Holdsworth ---
> Did you test it with big-endian?
Good question. It seems to do the right thing in both cases:
https://godbolt.org/z/7rDzAm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 47598
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47598=edit
gzipped C++ source code
The attached C++ source code seems to be still broken.
-march=native (aka bdver2) seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23287
Bug 23287 depends on bug 12333, which changed state.
Bug 12333 Summary: [DR 272] Explicit call to MyClass::~MyClass() not allowed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12333
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
Bug 29843 depends on bug 12333, which changed state.
Bug 12333 Summary: [DR 272] Explicit call to MyClass::~MyClass() not allowed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12333
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93174
Bug ID: 93174
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE building glibc
__sha512_process_block for i686
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #38 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #37)
>(because the warning is correct for the over-reduced optional):
This is better:
template
struct optional
{
optional () : m_dummy (), live (false) {}
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93163
Bug 93163 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93076
Bug 93076 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93077
Bug 93077 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93134
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93156
--- Comment #10 from Bruno Haible ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> So the only thing we should take from the above for the compiler is optimize
> in ccp that x*x has the second least significant bit clear.
If a compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176
Bug ID: 93176
Summary: PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93178
Bug ID: 93178
Summary: PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant generation if msb is
off in low 16 bit
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93076
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 47599
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47599=edit
Testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93076
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
My bisection points to:
commit ca09820d964b68e165153c6770b4403dece92004
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 19 14:06:45 2019 +
PR c++/66139 - EH cleanups for partially constructed aggregates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93180
Bug ID: 93180
Summary: const function pointers placed in a custom section are
causing that custom section to become writable
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 7 01:07:59 2020
New Revision: 279936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279936=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92552 - ICE with inherited constrained default ctor.
We set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82380
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92552
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93076
Bug 93076 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93163
Bug 93163 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93077
Bug 93077 depends on bug 93033, which changed state.
Bug 93033 Summary: [10 Regression] error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93033
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92739
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 7 01:02:06 2020
New Revision: 279935
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279935=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92739 - parsing requires clause with attributes.
gcc/cp/
* parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93154
--- Comment #3 from DB ---
still occurs with the new g++-10 (Debian 10-20200104-1) 10.0.0 20200104
(experimental) [trunk revision 279880]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93180
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
as I mentioned function pointer has nothing to do with it, you can see the
behavior with:
__attribute((__section__("mysection"))) int const cx = -42;
typedef const int *iptr;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93179
Bug ID: 93179
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in loop_depth on
x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91263
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, a==b is equivalent to std::equal(a.begin(), a.end(), b.begin(), b.end())
which doesn't have access to the container's equality predicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93180
--- Comment #3 from pskocik at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for explaining. Yes, -fPIC does cause the section to become writable on
clang.
I'm currently toying with using a custom section to gather const
function-pointers, but this -fPIC stuff is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47877
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91263
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93152
--- Comment #6 from DB ---
still occurs with the new g++-10 (Debian 10-20200104-1) 10.0.0 20200104
(experimental) [trunk revision 279880]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93177
Bug ID: 93177
Summary: PPC: Missing many useful platform intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 82380, which changed state.
Bug 82380 Summary: [concepts] Error when using requires constraint with
attributes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82380
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93181
Bug ID: 93181
Summary: -Wuninitialized fails to warn about uninitialized
value; -Wmaybe-uninitialized should also warn.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93162
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 7 07:14:41 2020
New Revision: 279944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279944=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/93162
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_clauses): Check
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
