https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||90458
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> In general on x86 the compiler handles stack allocation (and probing when
> stack clash protection is enabled). However, on Windows targets that stuff
> is actually handled by calls to __chkstk_ms.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98193
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4164e58bfd5d57e7399f91c7c27ae6ccebc7dcb0
commit r11-5874-g4164e58bfd5d57e7399f91c7c27ae6ccebc7dcb0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0673fc691175bfdb72d70c2fbbfcad238a3a9942
commit r11-5875-g0673fc691175bfdb72d70c2fbbfcad238a3a9942
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98193
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r8-2658-g9b25e12d2d940a61.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Started with r8-2658-g9b25e12d2d940a61.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98203
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
should link all the split_constant_offset issues together ...
What is going on is that in 'update_costs_from_allocno' we try to
identify the smallest mode using narrower_subreg_mode to then update the
costs.
The two modes involved here are E_DImode and E_VNx2QImode, cause these
are not ordered we ICE in 'paradoxical_subreg_p'.
Now I don't know if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #3 from Andrea Corallo ---
What is going on is that in 'update_costs_from_allocno' we try to
identify the smallest mode using narrower_subreg_mode to then update the
costs.
The two modes involved here are E_DImode and E_VNx2QImode,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98169
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98114
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98211
Bug ID: 98211
Summary: [11 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 since
r11-4482-gb626b00823af9ca9
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98211
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Perhaps some of those checks on the other side are redundant and could be
> turned e.g. into gcc_checking_assert of gcc_assert, I bet if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|SHF_GNU_RETAIN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #3)
> @Martin: I originally saw the issue with a testcase generated by YARPGen
> (https://github.com/intel/yarpgen), but this only hit the bug with LTO.
Oh, cool. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
>
> --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> If we can't assert, I guess the rule is that we need to extend
> whenever we're storing to the MSB of the inner register. We can
> do that either by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98169
--- Comment #2 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com ---
This also applies to vector types.
---
typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(8))) T;
T f(T a) {
return a != a;
}
---
Gcc could generate:
--
f:
xorps xmm1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Bug ID: 98212
Summary: X86 unoptimal code for float equallity comparison
followed by jump
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98215
--- Comment #2 from rene.jacobsen at deic dot dk ---
Created attachment 49716
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49716=edit
nvptx preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98019
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21796
Bug 21796 depends on bug 20408, which changed state.
Bug 20408 Summary: Unnecessary code generated for empty structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #8 from jamesgua at ca dot ibm.com ---
one more function found the same issue:
memcpy
I guess more functions in libc might have same issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
Bug ID: 98217
Summary: Prefer a warning for when VLAs declared on stack
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Looks like this might have gone latent on trunk. First thought
was that it might be g:7b4ea2827d2003c8ffc76cd478f8974360cbd78f,
but it seems not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98210
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #15 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
attached is the output file from
c:\MinGW>objdump -t c:\mingw\programs\testcsqrt.exe >cmdout.txt
don't see any reference to libraries, though.
thanks,
dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98182
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #5)
> The new test if-to-switch-10.c fails on aarch64:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/if-to-switch-10.c scan-tree-dump iftoswitch "Condition
> chain with [^\n\r]* BBs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49720
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49720=edit
v2
Ok, I think I'm understanding what fixinclude's testsuite is looking for.
Here's an updated patch, using the
"rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #3)
>> Created attachment 49710 [details]
>> PR97092.patch
>>
>> What is going on is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #5 from Andrea Corallo ---
"rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97875
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Interestingly, if I make arm_builtin_support_vector_misalignment() behave the
same for MVE and Neon, the generated code (with __restrict__) becomes:
test_vsub_i32:
@ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #7 from Andrea Corallo ---
"rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from
"rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #5)
>> "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
>> writes:
>>
>> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93083
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6e42891d80c12c4fac36d6273b8d4e31a3d0a2a
commit r10-9133-ge6e42891d80c12c4fac36d6273b8d4e31a3d0a2a
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
--- Comment #4 from David Svoboda ---
Martin:
Thanks. It looks like -Wvla-larger-than=0 is (theoretically) a good way to
catch VLA stack declarations.
There is still the issue that GCC's -Wvla did not flag use of array[*]. To me
that is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
--- Comment #5 from David Svoboda ---
Oops, the Clang bug entry is really here:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48460
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> Looks like this might have gone latent on trunk. First thought
> was that it might be g:7b4ea2827d2003c8ffc76cd478f8974360cbd78f,
> but it seems not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
--- Comment #2 from David Svoboda ---
I have also submitted a similar bug report to Clang, it is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93083
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98182
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Summary|SVE: Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #3)
> Created attachment 49710 [details]
> PR97092.patch
>
> What is going on is that in 'update_costs_from_allocno' we try to
> identify the smallest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:24:20PM +, dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
>
> --- Comment #15 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
> attached is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49719
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49719=edit
patch
does this fix it? I can't run the fixinclude testsuite on gcc119 as autogen
doesn't appear to be there:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #17 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
No, I don't think it is compiled with static option. I am using code blocks,
which does not seem to even allow a static option.
From: sgk at troutmask dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Hm, can it be that fixincludes/tests/base/sys/types.h simply needs to be
updated?
For example, here is a similar commit:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #5)
> "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
> writes:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98215
Bug ID: 98215
Summary: Coalescing memory in target region creates slower code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98182
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33d2f41785b24ad43c5a9d52aa289e33ac838f86
commit r11-5883-g33d2f41785b24ad43c5a9d52aa289e33ac838f86
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98182
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92446
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88355
Emmanuel Le Trong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49722
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49722=edit
Tentative patch for the PR
The attached regtests OK and the following runs correctly:
module ur
contains
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98182
--- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon ---
Indeed if-to-switch-1.c fails on aarch64 too, the other ones pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92576
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98216
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98215
--- Comment #1 from rene.jacobsen at deic dot dk ---
Created attachment 49715
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49715=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #41 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
[RFC] [avr] Toolchain Integration for Testsuite Execution (avr cc0 to mode_cc0
conversion)
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561427.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17232
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56838
Bug 56838 depends on bug 17232, which changed state.
Bug 17232 Summary: [DR 1640] classes and class template specializations treated
differently w.r.t. core issue #337
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17232
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97517
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97517
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe70679b80f5e6193a0976be41b68d590c7cb2f3
commit r11-5884-gfe70679b80f5e6193a0976be41b68d590c7cb2f3
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
b = wrapper {};
auto c = add (a, b);
assert (c.arr == MINUS_TWO); // <- should fail
assert (c.arr == MINUS_ONE); // <- should pass
}
Compiled with version 11.0.0 20201209, the first assertion passes and the
second fails. It should be the opposite.
FWIW, if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98108
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's QoI whether this works.
"The objects are constructed and the associations are established at some time
prior to or during the first time an object of class ios_base::Init is
constructed, ..."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Still a similar error:
sys/types.h /home/iii/gcc/fixincludes/tests/base/sys/types.h differ: byte 243,
line 12
*** sys/types.h 2020-12-09 15:57:57.575959676 +
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-09
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98213
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so it's "merely" taking a long time (exponential) walking all paths through
the CFG. Meh.
I have a patch fixing this case but will have to think about some more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97875
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
In both cases (Neon and MVE), DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT is 8, so the decision to emit
a useless loop tail comes from elsewhere.
And yes, MVE vldrw.32 and vstrw.32 share the same alignment properties.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Oh, just in case: gcc121 is x86_64 CentOS Linux 7, not AIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88355
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88355
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It was fixed by r273591 so maybe a dup of PR c++/90098 or PR c++/90099 or PR
c++/90101
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49721
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49721=edit
v3
oh, I think I'm supposed to run ./genfixes too ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> > If we can't assert, I guess the rule is that we need to extend
> > whenever we're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98144
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Unfortunately not, with this patch I get:
sys/types.h gcc/fixincludes/tests/base/sys/types.h differ: byte 243, line 12
*** sys/types.h 2020-12-09 15:46:15.843503181 +
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98213
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84d08255f9f2f7137caf648fcc9dc36101bc893c
commit r11-5886-g84d08255f9f2f7137caf648fcc9dc36101bc893c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
