https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97084
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
If one assumes that the pointer can be privatized (as the pointer target is
updated) and adds in gfc_omp_clause_copy_ctor a simple
return build2_v (MODIFY_EXPR, dest, src);
it compiles and runs but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97313
Bug ID: 97313
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at
lra.c:1004 since r11-937-g5261cf8ce824bfc7
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97313
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97312
Bug ID: 97312
Summary: [11 regression] aarch64/pr90838.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
Bug ID: 97315
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in choose_value, at
gimple-ssa-evrp.c:282 since
r11-3690-gebc77ce3a4c70730b4e38d68f88693eadbdc8712
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97314
Bug ID: 97314
Summary: bootstrap failure on i686-linux-gnu with
--enable-checking=yes,extra,rtl
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97290
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed on master with g:190c04ba36d9c6c3dce41f12012aa97c6d7f22f5
commit 190c04ba36d9c6c3dce41f12012aa97c6d7f22f5
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon Oct 5 18:03:08 2020 +0200
lto: fix LTO debug sections
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab ---
On powerpc64:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
f951: internal compiler error: Could not find real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97084
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Trying with:
character(len=:), allocatable :: temp_string
character(len=N) :: temp_string2
(using one or the other)
Both get set to 'shared' initially; in omp-low.c' scan_sharing_clauses:
case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
operator_cast::op1_range() is creating a range with swapped operands here:
// And union this with the entire outer types negative range.
int_range_max neg (type,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or something like:
auto __b = [__begin, __n](size_t __i) -> _Type& {
return __begin[__i % __n];
};
auto __b32 = [__b](size_t __i) { return (uint32_t)__b(__i); };
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97314
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, but for me it was resolved with
r11-3518-g37ffe56c01e4a9e80a3b3c4f5beb86d80a0663db. If the (huge) switch is
optimized by switchconv, then DF doesn't run into the latent problematic case.
I'm not using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||x86_64-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97318
Bug ID: 97318
Summary: [nvptx] Function splitting results in invalid function
name
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
EVRP knows to "skip" unreachable edges. Not sure how you even "ask" EVRP for
values in unreachable blocks? It's lattice does never reflect its state?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97305
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97292
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It also reproduces on Haswell x86_64 (czery).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97319
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97305
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e91c34262d2dd06da4b9436744bff89007dee2c9
commit r11-3692-ge91c34262d2dd06da4b9436744bff89007dee2c9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Bug ID: 97317
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at
value-range.cc:369
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #1)
> Seeing a similar ICE with the following simple C testcase:
>
> int a;
> int b(signed char c, int d) { return c < 0 ? 0 : c >> d; }
> void e(void)
> {
> for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> EVRP knows to "skip" unreachable edges. Not sure how you even "ask" EVRP
> for values in unreachable blocks? It's lattice does never reflect its state?
Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97319
Bug ID: 97319
Summary: LTO profiledbootstrap (C/C++/Fotran only) fails with a
segfault in selftest
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97312
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97312
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97316
Bug ID: 97316
Summary: config/libbid/bid64_noncomp.c: 7 * pointless test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The patch causes g++.dg/vect/simd-bool-comparison-1.cc to FAIL because
it will result in signed BOOLEAN_TYPEs with precision 1 rejected. Those we
use for build_nonstandard_boolean_type via
#0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
evrp and ranger disagree on the singleton range for _3 in the following stmt:
:
if (_3 != 1)
(gdb) ptg evrp_ret
0
(gdb) ptg ranger_ret
1
Which is interesting because BB5 is actually unreachable:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e089e43365f7f2a90979e2316aea25d44823f5a3
commit r11-3698-ge089e43365f7f2a90979e2316aea25d44823f5a3
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
I get something similar with this test case:
int a;
void b() {
if (a >= 2147483647)
c(a + 1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320
Bug ID: 97320
Summary: False positive "Array reference out of bounds in loop"
in a protecting if block
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97292
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> Pehraps it would be more useful to add debug counter to the place
> disambiguation is done (where we dump ipa-modref: in tree-ssa-alias.
> That way we would have both the summary and the access.
Please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97295
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> The patch causes g++.dg/vect/simd-bool-comparison-1.cc to FAIL because
> it will result in signed BOOLEAN_TYPEs with precision 1 rejected. Those we
> use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97290
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Intel ifort and ifx accept the test case without errors.
They both accept
pointer pi
integer :: pi=>null()
and
integer :: pi=>null()
pointer pi
Anyway, it's easy to transfom it into
integer, pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97321
Bug ID: 97321
Summary: add warning for pointer casts that may lead to
aliasing violation when dereferenced
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97323
Bug ID: 97323
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE 'verify_type' failed on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97110
Bug 97110 depends on bug 97116, which changed state.
Bug 97116 Summary: Fix argument numbering in C++ member function calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93606
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97273
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
commit r11-3704-g592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:19:18AM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab ---
> On powerpc64:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error)
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> I get something similar with this test case:
>
> int a;
> void b() {
> if (a >= 2147483647)
> c(a + 1);
> }
This one is slightly different.
Still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31775
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95263
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dae673abd37d400408959497e50fe1f3fbef5533
commit r11-3705-gdae673abd37d400408959497e50fe1f3fbef5533
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab ---
Any ICE is a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97294
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note I'm afraid we can't put the testcase into GCC testsuite easily, because we
have testsuite for libgomp and testsuite for asan, but don't have *.exp to link
against both libraries at their build locations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c7e841806aecf4187c69fc2ff07813c7be09582
commit r11-3702-g7c7e841806aecf4187c69fc2ff07813c7be09582
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #18 from Andreas Schwab ---
Any ICE is a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |bootstrap
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f7c50b7091c09d665aaf27173aacf34c9904e4c
commit r11-3701-g2f7c50b7091c09d665aaf27173aacf34c9904e4c
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10)
> Created attachment 49293 [details]
> supergraph
Thanks. Compared to my testing, I'm seeing what appear to be differences in
the inputs to the analyzer at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
commit r11-3704-g592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The patch will cause
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "LOOP VECTORIZED" 2
since the testcase has exactly such a pattern:
unsigned int
condition_reduction (unsigned int *a, unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97322
Bug ID: 97322
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at
stor-layout.c:404 on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97322
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #18)
> Any ICE is a bug.
If powerpc64 does not have REAL(16), then you'll need
to xfail the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On October 7, 2020 5:35:02 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
>
>--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod ---
>(In reply to David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin B. Meier ---
Thanks for the super quick reaction:)!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
OK, there are a couple of things at play in this PR.
The original problem isn't actually unreachable code. well, sort of.
The pass determines something is unreachable and changes the condition, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97294
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97279
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97326
Bug ID: 97326
Summary: [11 Regression] s390: ICE in do_store_flag after
10843f830350
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188
--- Comment #12 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 49293 [details]
> > supergraph
>
> Thanks. Compared to my testing, I'm seeing what appear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Tobler ---
First, excuse me Thomas, I was focused on 'Tobias' from the description text.
It seems to pass bootstrap with /usr/bin/ld on FreeBSD-13. The test suite will
tell more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On October 7, 2020 5:30:14 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
>
>Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97324
Bug ID: 97324
Summary: -mcpu= isn't validated on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at the evrp dump, I see
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
Value ranges after Early VRP:
_1: short unsigned int VARYING
_2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Tobler ---
Hi Tobias,
on FreeBSD-12.1, the ld is from binutils 2.17, a really old one.
Try to configure with '--with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --with-ld=/usr/local/bin/ld
'. Prerequisite is the installation of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #3 from Kristian Spangsege ---
I would recommend not locking arithmetic to std::uint32_t, and instead working
with std::uint_fast32_t, because I can imaging a platform (current or future)
where 32-bit arithmetic is slower that 64-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see how manually written arithmetic with explicit % operations is going
to beat using built-in types that do that automatically.
If 64-bit arithmetic is faster than 32-bit arithmetic, I would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96531
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||src at andyf dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Looking at the evrp dump, I see
> EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
> EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
> EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
>
> Value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
when using gcc10.2 to compile our application, we have the same compilation
error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amacleod at redhat dot
com
---
-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20201007 (experimental) (GCC)
It triggers also on different targets, such as:
$ aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-latest-aarch64/bin/aarc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96355
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amacleod at redhat dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kristian Spangsege from comment #3)
> bonus, the code will work on platforms that do not have std::uint32_t.
GCC doesn't work on such platforms, and other parts of libstdc++ already assume
it
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
