https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
Bug ID: 101544
Summary: [OpenMP] 'declare target' block around class –
unresolved _Znwm = "operator new(unsigned long)"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101545
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar ---
The same code with [[gnu::warn_unused_result]] instead of [[nodiscard]] doesn't
trigger the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
The standalone amdgcn configuration does not support C++. There are a number of
technical reasons why it doesn't Just Work, but basically it comes down to
no-one ever working on it. Our customers were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101548
Bug ID: 101548
Summary: dependence analysis fails with .MASK_STORE
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101525
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101545
Bug ID: 101545
Summary: [[nodiscard]]: Incorrect warning when creating a
function alias
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101512
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So we have
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(<<< Unknown tree: compound_literal_expr
V D.2844 = {(long unsigned int) n ()}; >>>)[n ()]
but fail to mark D.2844 TREE_ADDRESSABLE. That's because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101535
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b136b7a78774107943fe94051c42b5a968a3ad3f
commit r12-2433-gb136b7a78774107943fe94051c42b5a968a3ad3f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101535
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:076930b9690ac3564638636f6b13bbb6bc608aea
commit r11-8792-g076930b9690ac3564638636f6b13bbb6bc608aea
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101546
Bug ID: 101546
Summary: Sporadic issue during compiling a code with a
'--save-temps' option
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #270 from Larkin Nickle ---
Reading symbols from
/home/larbob/Projects/build-gcc/builds/gcc-11.1.0/.o/./prev-gcc/cc1...BFD:
/home/larbob/Projects/build-gcc/builds/gcc-11.1.0/.o/prev-gcc/cc1 symbol number
7215 references nonexistent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101512
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
While the ICE in DSE happens only with GCC 11+ the bogus GIMPLE IL is latent on
older branches as well, including GCC 8.5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
Summary|[OpenMP]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101547
Bug ID: 101547
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
c_tree_printer)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101548
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It works with
void foo (double * __restrict a, double *b)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
{
double tem = a[i];
if (b[i] < tem)
a[i] = tem + b[i];
}
}
and
[local count:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101530
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101531
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101533
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
25987 /* Prevent broken recursion; we can't hand off to the same type.
*/
25988 gcc_assert (DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE (name) != type);
I guess the issue is that we have qualified_type == type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101516
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aea199f96cf116ba4c81426207acde371556610c
commit r12-2432-gaea199f96cf116ba4c81426207acde371556610c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101516
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae2ce6aadbfd211162b4232e413f9fc2ba873cb4
commit r11-8791-gae2ce6aadbfd211162b4232e413f9fc2ba873cb4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100208
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #3)
> C++ offloading works fine provided that there are no library calls or
> exceptions.
There's no reason std::pair, std::tuple, std::optional and types like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101527
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I find it surprising, but the CWG consensus seems to be that a friend defined
inline in the class body is "a member declaration of the befriended class".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Stubbs ---
[Note: all of my comments refer to the amdgcn case. nvptx has somewhat
different support in this area.]
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> But it's a waste of space in the .so to build lots of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100493
Benno Evers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at bmevers dot de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101542
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101473
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
I think it is a bug - -fdebug-prefix-map should be fully reflected in the LTO
IL and thus we should not end up creating un-remapped references to files (we
should not create many references to files late
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101473
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think in DWARF for compilation units DW_AT_comp_dir is not optional.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101428
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belagod at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101542
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This should work:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/rope
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/rope
@@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
std::copy(__x._M_buffer, __x._M_buffer +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101551
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Similarly, when calling 'lang_hooks.decl_printable_name (current_function_decl,
2)' in 'gcc/omp-offload.c:execute_oacc_device_lower' for:
#pragma acc routine
template T
ROUTINE(int val)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101553
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101553
Bug ID: 101553
Summary: [12 Regression] armhf builds broken on
-Werror=array-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101552
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
IIRC libstdc++ had a freestanding mode that could serve as base.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, --disable-libstdcxx-hosted will build the freestanding version of
libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101473
--- Comment #21 from tonyb at cybernetics dot com ---
I tried adding -f*-prefix-map to LDFLAGS in Yocto, and that makes everything I
tested binary reproducible, except for some shared libraries in /lib and
/usr/lib because libtool filters out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101549
Bug ID: 101549
Summary: [12 Regression] internal compiler error: in
extract_insn, at recog.c:2769
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101550
Bug ID: 101550
Summary: -Wanalyzer-file-leak false positive with an array of
pointers, open and fdopen.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101551
Bug ID: 101551
Summary: [offloading] Differences in diagnostics etc.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100878
Milian Wolff changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98821
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4d306cf706eef83f99d510c308eda1539d05875
commit r12-2436-ge4d306cf706eef83f99d510c308eda1539d05875
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101552
Bug ID: 101552
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage with "for( )" statement
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101554
Bug ID: 101554
Summary: [GCOV] The coverage of "for" goes wrong.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101542
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #0)
> This started failing with a recent Clang change
> (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/
> 7d2d5a3a6d7aaa40468c30250bf6b0938ef02c08), described as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101539
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for __builtin_is_corresponding_member, could be perhaps implemented as
varargs FE builtin and only check during folding it has exactly two arguments
that are pointer to data members with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skpgkp2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #20 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101555
Bug ID: 101555
Summary: Compile slowdown in tree PRE
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101556
Bug ID: 101556
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage that may be caused by "ASM" and
"volatile"
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101555
--- Comment #1 from Wilson Snyder ---
Created attachment 51187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51187=edit
Examples and runtimes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87743
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skpgkp2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from Serge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101539
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the implementation of is_corresponding_member heavily depends on
layout-compatibility ensuring the same sizes and alignments of the members,
otherwise
any comparison of the OFFSET_TYPE values (which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101557
Bug ID: 101557
Summary: the value of '' is not usable in a constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #271 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-07-21 2:32 a.m., me at larbob dot org wrote:
> Reading symbols from
> /home/larbob/Projects/build-gcc/builds/gcc-11.1.0/.o/./prev-gcc/cc1...BFD:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101558
Bug ID: 101558
Summary: Abnormal behavior with -O3 : warning: writing 8 bytes
into a region of size 0 [-Wstringop-overflow=]
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101527
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> I find it surprising, but the CWG consensus seems to be that a friend
> defined inline in the class body is "a member declaration of the befriended
> class".
Hey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100493
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101559
Bug ID: 101559
Summary: RISCV -- incorrect label address when using -O2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101393
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51164|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b937dbf2577e0fa3018c562312da7b08bbe72d70
commit r12-2438-gb937dbf2577e0fa3018c562312da7b08bbe72d70
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101561
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40380
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My doxygen patch was merged, so we can start to use SHOW_HEADERFILE and
@headerfile to do this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101393
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #9)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> > I don't think it is a good idea to add workaround upon workaround to avoid
> > some of the not-so-useful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101559
--- Comment #3 from Joël Porquet ---
Thanks for the quick replies and the clear explanation!
I'm a little bummed because this construct enabled me to write --what I
considered to be-- clean code for a bootloader. As shown below, I could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #273 from John Buddery ---
If you go back a bit further, is there a speculative load of one of those
registers
(probably r47 / r59 ) ?
A speculative load will have a .s I think.
I believe ILL_REGNAT should actually be a SEGV, not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101549
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7aa28dbc371cf3c09c05c68672b00d9006391595
commit r12-2440-g7aa28dbc371cf3c09c05c68672b00d9006391595
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Jul 21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101531
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.2|11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101564
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 08:37:02PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-July/056264.html
>
OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101557
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #2)
> clang does not reject it:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/8Mq1e3o3j
clang 11 does reject it but clang 12 does NOT reject it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #272 from Larkin Nickle ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #271)
> On 2021-07-21 2:32 a.m., me at larbob dot org wrote:
> > Reading symbols from
> > /home/larbob/Projects/build-gcc/builds/gcc-11.1.0/.o/./prev-gcc/cc1...BFD:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101553
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Thanks, I didn't see the patch, I've pinged the maintainers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101469
--- Comment #6 from Rin Okuyama ---
(In reply to Rin Okuyama from comment #3)
> If that peephole is removed, GCC 10.3 generates working codes.
>
> NetBSD/shle built by this compiler works fine as far as I can see.
> I'm carrying out full
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101566
--- Comment #5 from Dale Weiler ---
(In reply to Dale Weiler from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Dale Weiler from comment #2)
> > > Ah, passing `T&` here instead of T does appear to avoid the issue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88035
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at suse dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101559
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101562
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101562
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
669 /* Insert WIDTH bits from Y into X starting at START. */
670 wide_int
671 wi::insert (const wide_int , const wide_int , unsigned int start,
672 unsigned int width)
673 {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101565
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=88035
--- Comment #3 from Sunil Pandey ---
I added _mm512_reduce_round_pd() and bunch of other missing intrinsic last
year.
commit 93103603fd66a9fcf3ea2d8b52657e4b2496f544
Author: Sunil K Pandey
Date: Wed Oct 14 11:36:39 2020 -0700
x86: Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101522
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101553
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101559
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andreas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101557
--- Comment #4 from Federico Kircheis ---
Indeed.
I just checked the latest versions.
I wonder if there is a common cause that makes this recursive data structure
harder to evaluate at compile time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101558
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101560
Bug ID: 101560
Summary: ICE building 526.blender_r with -Ofast -flto
-march=znver2 since r12-1958-gedafb35bdad
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
