https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95900
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #2 from Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer ---
Somewhat related: the same code compiled with arm64-gcc -mabi=ilp32 -frwapv
does miscompile *both* functions.
See https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/uxDAtx
Should I open a new issue for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95892
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a well-known issue where diagnostics in function parameter-lists all
have the location of the closing brace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95892
--- Comment #3 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is a well-known issue where diagnostics in function parameter-lists all
> have the location of the closing brace.
Thank you, Jonathan.
I guess bug 95831
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #4 from Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer ---
Yes, ilp32 might be a corner case.
Still, clang-10 does create the expected code.
See https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/aEokbX for
clang-10 -target arm64_32-ios -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fwrapv
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95899
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The register allocator cannot always recover so it can lead to spilling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|New test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95897
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase that also triggers on x86_64 and without graphite:
double foo (double x, int n)
{
double s = 0.;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
s += x;
s += x;
s += x;
}
return s;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For ilp32 I'm not convinced it is a bug, the address space needs to be 32-bit
only and for this to cause problems, you need a 4GB+ element array with the
pointer pointing into the middle of it such that both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95809
--- Comment #3 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> yup, dr2061 made that ill-formed.
>
> p1701 (wg21.link/p1701) documents the behaviour and it appears EWG is
> exploring another avenue to resolve the underlying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95906
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48788=edit
gcc11-pr95903.patch
Untested fix. I don't really care what clang generates or what you find
expected on ilp32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95892
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
PR 95892 points out the -Wsign-conversion warnings below all have the location
of the closing parenthesis:
unsigned int var = 10;
void foo (
int a = var,
int b = var,
int c = var )
{}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95907
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95907
Bug ID: 95907
Summary: ICE in unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks for reduction, I can confirm that. What happens:
mips-ps-5.c.171t.loopdone:
_34 = vect__1.7_28 == vect__3.11_33;
vect_iftmp.12_35 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_34, vect__1.7_28, vect__2.10_31>;
which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #8 from Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer ---
Got it, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #9 from Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer ---
[ Just for reference, created bug 95908 ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #3)
> Some of the abort messages in main were not updated after copy/paste
> "Failed to call one of the ... cases"
I made individual test-cases for each promise entry,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Thanks for reduction, I can confirm that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95909
Bug ID: 95909
Summary: Wrong line information at Og
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
Bug ID: 95910
Summary: transform view in combination with single view calls
const qualified begin even if it is not const
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
--- Comment #3 from Michael Bruck ---
Some of the abort messages in main were not updated after copy/paste
"Failed to call one of the ... cases"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #3)
> > Some of the abort messages in main were not updated after copy/paste
> > "Failed to call one of the ... cases"
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95809
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
The code is invalid due to DR2061
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95897
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b959c22bc0158faa359a5899bf46e815dc65290
commit r11-1671-g5b959c22bc0158faa359a5899bf46e815dc65290
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95830
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly simply a disconnect in the mips expanders for vcond vs vcmp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Summary|[Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95620
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Keywords|rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #6 from Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
And no need to be grumpy, I'm just trying to nail down those pesky edge
cases...
As for ILP32, here is another suspicious test case, now only using just a
little bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95903
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe all arrays larger than half of the address space are outside of the
standard already, one can't perform e.g. address arithmetics on those because
it overflows the ptrdiff_t in which it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95908
Bug ID: 95908
Summary: [AArch64] wrong code with ILP32 and -fwrapv
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e74c76073092f4715007584edb1fe6b7a17274db
commit r11-1673-ge74c76073092f4715007584edb1fe6b7a17274db
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95048
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95068
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95911
Bug ID: 95911
Summary: [8/9/10/11] returning && makes an error without any
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95620
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
--without-isl --disable-libsanitizer --disable-libvtv
--disable-libgomp --disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-libunwind-exceptions
CFLAGS='-O1 ' CXXFLAGS='-O1 ' --with-sysroot=/usr/x86_64-HEAD-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20200626
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95924
Bug ID: 95924
Summary: Failure to optimize some bit magic to one of the
operands
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95928
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen ---
Created attachment 48792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48792=edit
sys_ni.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95928
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen ---
Created attachment 48793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48793=edit
capability.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95928
Bug ID: 95928
Summary: LTO through ar breaks weak function resolution
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922
Bug ID: 95922
Summary: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) |
(b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95928
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen ---
Versions reproduced:
gcc version 10.1.1 20200507 [revision dd38686d9c810cecbaa80bb82ed91caaa58ad635]
(SUSE Linux)
gcc-9 (SUSE Linux) 9.3.1 20200406 [revision
6db837a5288ee3ca5ec504fbd5a765817e556ac2]
p/parser.c:17762
0x9a2a02 cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:14410
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$g++ --version
g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95674
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I looked at this problem.
All assignments are done in IRA (LRA does not change them). We can not make a
better assignment because scratches do not permit to store any preferences from
instruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95923
Bug ID: 95923
Summary: Failure to optimize bool checks into and
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 11.0.0 20200626 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95926
Bug ID: 95926
Summary: Failure to optimize xor pattern when
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
../gcc/c-family/c-opts.c:1190
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 11.0.0 20200626 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2020
signal terminated program
cc1plus
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 11.0.0 20200626 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95928
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
Reproduced on trunk too
11.0-200626 e74c281bf4955eea7fdc5f21b43e29fa0235a5b0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95921
--- Comment #1 from Rich Felker ---
I wonder if the fact that GCC thinks the output of the insn is already double
suggests other similar bugs in the m68k backend, though... If extended
precision were working correctly, I'd think it would at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
Bug 93492 depends on bug 95655, which changed state.
Bug 95655 Summary: -mfentry -pg generates extra push/pop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95655
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95655
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95655
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:727efd27da90fe09ed393c7bb44bba071ae0e0d3
commit r11-1680-g727efd27da90fe09ed393c7bb44bba071ae0e0d3
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Jun 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663
--- Comment #11 from John Zwinck ---
Jeffrey, when I compile with -fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-dereference I am
asking the compiler not to insert traps. I filed this issue in hopes that GCC
can better optimize when it is told not to insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95929
Bug ID: 95929
Summary: Failure to optimize tautological comparisons of
comparisons to a single one
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
ugs/> for instructions.
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 11.0.0 20200626 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95933
Bug ID: 95933
Summary: pointer variables in template classes admit arbitrary
assignments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
; enum struct a {
| ^
bug.cc:2:35: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
2 | template https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 11.0.0 20200626 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95921
Bug ID: 95921
Summary: [m68k] invalid codegen for __builtin_sqrt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95934
Bug ID: 95934
Summary: bootstrap fails in compiler assert in
sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:1136
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95928
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
It doesn't seem to be the plugin itself, I compiled trunk with the gcc-7
lto-plugin.c and it fails too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95916
--- Comment #1 from Vsevolod Livinskiy ---
This bug might be related to bug 95761
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95916
Bug ID: 95916
Summary: ICE during GIMPLE pass: slp : verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95917
Bug ID: 95917
Summary: coroutine functions leak under freestanding mode
causing dependencies and binary bloat.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95917
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #3)
> Jonathan. I am MAD at you. This is absolutely your fault. I told you to
> always write inline and you guys do not then allow Herb Sutter to ban me.
> Here is the fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95863
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||craig.topper at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95620
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95919
Bug ID: 95919
Summary: new test base gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 in
r11-1654 fails on BE
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95881
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95917
--- Comment #5 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #3)
> > Jonathan. I am MAD at you. This is absolutely your fault. I told you to
> > always write inline and you guys do not then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95863
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95917
--- Comment #3 from fdlbxtqi ---
Jonathan. I am MAD at you. This is absolutely your fault. I told you to always
write inline and you guys do not then allow Herb Sutter to ban me. Here is the
fault in your own controlled codebase. Are you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95826
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32613b6af830f12ee5b6ef97edd782666f47cbb8
commit r10-8375-g32613b6af830f12ee5b6ef97edd782666f47cbb8
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95910
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95881
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
Bug ID: 95918
Summary: gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE
architectures
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95906
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
I'd say generate a (vec_)cond_expr, not directly a max. That is, replace the
comparison with any truth_valued_p (hmm, that function probably stopped working
for vectors when all comparisons were wrapped in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95915
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|std::variant doesn't like |[10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95917
--- Comment #2 from fdlbxtqi ---
This makes me mad.
I compiled this under freestanding mode. Now coroutine causes binary bloat
which is completely unacceptable for me.
The problem of C++ is that you have to always write inline to undo the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95828
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e00a2d1aa68f92e413fec01ce912401bcfcf44f
commit r10-8374-g5e00a2d1aa68f92e413fec01ce912401bcfcf44f
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95920
Bug ID: 95920
Summary: Implicit declaration of function 'feenableexcept' in
fpu-target.h
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95913
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely a heurstic changes caused this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95917
--- Comment #1 from fdlbxtqi ---
void __dummy_resume_destroy() __attribute__((__weak__));
void __dummy_resume_destroy() {}
struct __noop_coro_frame
{
void (*__r)() = __dummy_resume_destroy;
void (*__d)() =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95917
--- Comment #6 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #3)
> > Jonathan. I am MAD at you. This is absolutely your fault. I told you to
> > always write inline and you guys do not then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
