https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99487
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
complete build log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-10=hppa=10.2.1-21=1615045917=1
/<>/build/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/<>/build/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/hppa-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostdinc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82094
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
One similar place where we do something similar is:
rtx
ix86_expand_builtin (tree exp, rtx target, rtx subtarget,
machine_mode mode, int ignore)
...
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea7fff4c43a24dee1db4153250455e6040a1afce
commit r11-7576-gea7fff4c43a24dee1db4153250455e6040a1afce
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99418
--- Comment #7 from Ivan Sorokin ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> That said, can we close it as resolved?
I'm sorry for not being clear from the beginning. The original report was about
-fsanitize=bounds sanitizer which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99477
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
Bug ID: 99488
Summary: dwz: /usr/lib/gcc/mips64el-linux-gnuabi64/11/go1:
Found two copies of .debug_line_str section
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||syq at debian dot org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99305
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50338=edit
gcc11-pr99305.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82094
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=99418
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Sorokin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Asan can't by design detect neither #c0 nor #c1, only ubsan can.
> The reason why ubsan has that off by one stuff is that in C/C++,
> [n - 1][m] is not undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99418
--- Comment #8 from Ivan Sorokin ---
If I understand #c5 correctly the minimal reproducer should be this:
void g(int&);
void f()
{
int a[10];
int& p = a[10]; // (1)
g(a[10]); // (2)
}
Both (1) and (2) are undefined and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85304
--- Comment #7 from Rakesh ---
Hi Team,
Is binutils-2.36 affected by this flaw?
Thanks,
Rakesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99421
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 50336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50336=edit
Reduced gcda file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99421
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Note that one can theoretically reduce also the .gcda file. I have an
> experimental pass for it in C-Vise and I will likely upstream it.
I've just added that here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99456
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50331|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99305
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99469
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82407
--- Comment #2 from Alexander
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99470
Mathias Stearn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99487
Bug ID: 99487
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE during RTL pass: final in
expand_function_start on hppa-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed.
But perhaps instead of adding new effective target tests, in this case it could
be resolved by:
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/pr98920.c.jj2021-03-08
23:40:33.935447429 +0100
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Indeed.
> But perhaps instead of adding new effective target tests, in this case it
> could
> be resolved by:
[... wrapping the bulk of main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384
--- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
it seems that libc++ doesn't have support for long double to_chars yet, so I
couldn't do a comparison with the platform libc++.
However, I did build the code with clang (but using -stdlib=libstdc++, so the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93628
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
LWG 3530 should mean we don't have to support such silly types.
https://wg21.link/lwg3530
However, we are still required to impose a total order on function pointers,
which means
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99486
Bug ID: 99486
Summary: Feature request: -fstack-check option for embedded
processors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99485
--- Comment #2 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > The result shows that function "free" was executed 5 times.
>
> Yes, the last 4 calls happen from libgcov run-time where memory is released:
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99305
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99305
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.c.jj2021-01-22 11:41:38.078708425 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.c 2021-03-09 13:15:02.649094949 +0100
@@ -808,14 +808,14 @@ conditional_replacement (basic_block con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99472
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99486
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99472
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b3d86a7768a7562798f17f074f540fbc288ec3b
commit r11-7575-g4b3d86a7768a7562798f17f074f540fbc288ec3b
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
I have a bisect in progress.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99454
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9725df0233b6fb6e761875968b3b8e9fd9f522ac
commit r11-7578-g9725df0233b6fb6e761875968b3b8e9fd9f522ac
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99318
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99487
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-03-09 5:58 a.m., doko at debian dot org wrote:
> during RTL pass: final
> ../../src/gcc/function.c: In function 'void expand_function_start(tree)':
> ../../src/gcc/function.c:5213:1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6051af8e3db9e6cea79d0e86da0e0dad286f7e4e
commit r10-9426-g6051af8e3db9e6cea79d0e86da0e0dad286f7e4e
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97104
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99426
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
in version 20210308 diagnostic changed:
In file included from /usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/iomanip:45:
/usr/local/include/c++/11.0.1/bits/quoted_string.h: In destructor ‘constexpr
std::allocator<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99318
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99423
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99454
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The patch is not enough. It seems that there are other asms in the test which
results in LRA crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99454
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb5d9e8361892a627f5ef9dda7f356f34000ed5b
commit r11-7584-gfb5d9e8361892a627f5ef9dda7f356f34000ed5b
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:defafb78cbcb7e2d5abd40379afdecee8b1a0d06
commit r11-7579-gdefafb78cbcb7e2d5abd40379afdecee8b1a0d06
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99478
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99418
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99459
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e252e23d34932f13f39cc6544bf5c9379fa2a87
commit r11-7582-g4e252e23d34932f13f39cc6544bf5c9379fa2a87
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 50340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50340=edit
range-clang.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Created attachment 50341
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50341=edit
range-gcc.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61474
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Khem Raj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99421
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #8)
> > On Mar 8, 2021, at 11:58 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
> > wrote:
> >
> > Sure. I used C-Vise:
> > https://github.com/marxin/cvise
>
> From my understanding,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99491
Bug ID: 99491
Summary: [mips64] over-strict refusal to emit tail calls
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99494
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Bug ID: 99489
Summary: internal compiler error: during GIMPLE pass: strlen in
dlt_logstorage_log_file_name()
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99493
Bug ID: 99493
Summary: Address of template parameter object is not a valid
template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/9zYo8f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99494
Bug ID: 99494
Summary: isfinite gets optimized away with -Ofast
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99421
--- Comment #8 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Mar 8, 2021, at 11:58 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> Sure. I used C-Vise:
> https://github.com/marxin/cvise
>From my understanding, cvise is similar as creduce, but faster.
So, I am still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
Bug ID: 99490
Summary: -gdwarf-5 -gsplit-dwarf puts .debug_rnglists to main
file, not .dwo file
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94177
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99492
Bug ID: 99492
Summary: double and double _Complex not aligned consistently on
AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99494
--- Comment #2 from arek_koz at o2 dot pl ---
Sorry for trouble, my bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99305
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b610c30453d8e4cc88693d85a5a100d089640be5
commit r11-7587-gb610c30453d8e4cc88693d85a5a100d089640be5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99305
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99495
Bug ID: 99495
Summary: constexpr virtual destructor is used before its
definition
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/GGY6aa
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82429
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88781
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64, x86_64
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil ---
LLDB testsuite failure from it is:
PASS: LLDB (/usr/bin/gcc-x86_64) :: test_with_run_command_dwarf
(TestTypeCompletion.TypeCompletionTestCase)
error: a.out {0x5850}: DIE has DW_AT_ranges(0x0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99094
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
GCC should place uninitialized static variables into a separate "section
anchor" pool.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99490
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99205
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99500
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
se
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210309 (experimental) (GCC)
The program names are fib-1.c to fib-5.c, fib-k.c contains 2^k copies of
fibonacci.
/pkgs/gcc-mainline/bin/gcc -march=native -D___CAN_IMPORT_CLIB_DYNAMICALLY -O1
-Wno-unused -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99504
Bug ID: 99504
Summary: Missing memmove detection
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #35 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50345
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50345=edit
Parametrized input files for test coverage testing.
These are the .i files that go with my previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99497
Bug ID: 99497
Summary: _mm_min_ss/_mm_max_ss incorrect results when values
known at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99501
Bug ID: 99501
Summary: Can't forward declare partial specialization of
template with NTTP previously partially specialized
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99497
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Simplified:
#include
void
print128 (__m128 var)
{
float val[4];
__builtin_memcpy (val, , sizeof(val));
__builtin_printf ("%f %f %f %f \n", val[0], val[1], val[2], val[3]);
}
int
main ()
{
__m128 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99499
Bug ID: 99499
Summary: bootstrap failure for bionic toolchains. error: '_U'
was not declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99500
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99498
Bug ID: 99498
Summary: [11 regression] new test case g++.dg/opt/pr99305.C in
r11-7587 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99497
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And another question is if we without -ffast-math ever create MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR
and what exactly are the rules for those, if it is safe to expand those into
SMAX etc., or if those need to use UNSPECs too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99503
Bug ID: 99503
Summary: sanitizers build error for android cross toolchain.
error: 'SA_ONSTACK' was not declared in this scope;
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99496
Bug ID: 99496
Summary: [11 regression] g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-3_c.C
ICEs after r11-7557
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99500
Bug ID: 99500
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'error_mark'
in cp_parser_requirement_parameter_list, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99499
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
Probably just remove this file and use the generic one it would work?
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/config/os/bionic/ctype_base.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99502
Bug ID: 99502
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on partial out of bounds access
in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
