https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104977
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104936
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104996
Bug ID: 104996
Summary: Overload resolution over rvalue/const lvalue array
reference parameters for an init. list argument
incorrectly picks the const lvalue ref. overload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104975
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104982
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Ever confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||iq2000-elf, v850e-elf
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104975
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104982
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
334Failed to match this instruction:
335(set (reg/v:SI 88 [ z ])
336(if_then_else:SI (eq (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 92)
337(const_int 1 [0x1])
338(zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104982
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> 334Failed to match this instruction:
> 335(set (reg/v:SI 88 [ z ])
> 336(if_then_else:SI (eq (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 92)
> 337(const_int 1 [0x1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104986
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|[12 Regression] b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104989
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104985
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE:|[12 Regression] ICE:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-21
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104990
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW the misfeature was added by https://reviews.llvm.org/D68055
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104982
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
I'm testing
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index 02f298c2846..c74edd1aaef 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -14182,12 +14182,12 @@ (define_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104982
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> I'm testing
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
> index 02f298c2846..c74edd1aaef 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
> +++ b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104996
--- Comment #1 from Ed Catmur ---
This should fix it:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/compare/master...ecatmur:pr-104996
Please test and report back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104990
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e63ac860afe816fef6b86bee6e47980e1351213c
commit r12-7734-ge63ac860afe816fef6b86bee6e47980e1351213c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104989
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=104994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104869
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a3073f04e8b7987ad7bfe1bc23bfeb1d627ee6a
commit r12-7736-g4a3073f04e8b7987ad7bfe1bc23bfeb1d627ee6a
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104869
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104997
Bug ID: 104997
Summary: ICE in add_note, at analyzer/diagnostic-manager.cc:946
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is this with Solaris as or GNU as?
I've tried to reproduce it with a cross from x86_64-linux to
i386-pc-solaris2.11 and have
#define HAVE_AS_TLS 1
in auto-host.h, but I don't see any movaps instructions in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103039
--- Comment #12 from martin ---
Thanks for fixing! I just checked with the real code and there it also looks
good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Is this with Solaris as or GNU as?
both.
> I've tried to reproduce it with a cross from x86_64-linux to
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 and have
> #d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52654&action=edit
32-bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 pointer2.s with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52655
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52655&action=edit
i386-pc-solaris2.11 auto-host.h with gas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88252
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104912
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I'm noting that for skylake cost we have
_28 * _33 1 times scalar_stmt costs 16 in prologue
and
_28 * _33 1 times vector_stmt costs 16 in body
but the load/store costs are just 12, compared to znver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104997
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the movaps that it fails on are:
movaps %xmm1, thr.1@ntpoff(%ebx)
movdqu 16(%eax), %xmm2
movaps %xmm2, thr.1@ntpoff+16(%ebx)
then I'd say it must be some Solaris bug, because:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104996
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104996
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
For the record, the full rejects-valid testcase is:
// #g.1: rvalue reference function parameter
constexpr bool g(int&&) { return true; }
// #g.2: const lvalue reference function parameter
constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is a general question if we shouldn't give up in can_increase_alignment_p
for all DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P vars because increasing their alignment doesn't
mean just a few wasted bytes per process due to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104998
Bug ID: 104998
Summary: Incorrect __cpuid usage
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104994
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ville says that P2242 did not intend to add new restrictions, so this was valid
in C++20, and should still be valid in C++23 even if control flow passes over
that non-local declaration. We might have a def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104994
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> We might have a defect in the
> current draft, because it seems to forbid it.
Oh, which Hubert already filed:
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2552.ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102426
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52656
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52656&action=edit
gcc12-pr102426.patch
So like this then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104999
Bug ID: 104999
Summary: [12 Regression] runtime error: pointer index
expression with base 0x0cf67720 overflowed to
0xea627728
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104997
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105000
Bug ID: 105000
Summary: __attribute__((target("no-sse"))) doesn't disable
AVX/SSE ISAs in ix86_isa_flags2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105000
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
#define OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX5124FMAPS (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << 3)
#define OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX5124VNNIW (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << 4)
#define OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX512BF16 (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << 5)
#define OPTION_MASK_ISA2_AVX5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104999
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105001
Bug ID: 105001
Summary: If executing with non-nvptx offloading, but nvptx
offloading compilation is enabled: FAIL:
libgomp.c/pr104783.c execution test
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104994
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52657
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52657&action=edit
gcc12-pr104994.patch
Untested fix. This anticipates that CWG. If we wouldn't, we should
temporarily revert t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105002
Bug ID: 105002
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/float128-minmax-3.c
fails starting with r12-7687-g3a7ba8fd0cda38
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105002
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||powerpc64le-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101484
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104088
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105001
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Interesting.
Can you compare dump files to see where the difference comes from?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105003
Bug ID: 105003
Summary: ICE in new test case from r12-7710-gc7a6a32739d62d
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101484
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If it is some special memory address space, would be nice if
targetm.addr_space.zero_address_valid returns true about it.
And in that case, if such a change doesn't fix it, pointer-query.cc or whatever
shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105003
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103147
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress on this?
I can help with it, but I can't decide what solution the backend prefers
(ignore -fpack-struct temporarily for those, or adjust the asserts, something
else).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104996
--- Comment #4 from Ed Catmur ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #2)
> We started rejecting the commented out static_assert after
> r10-3740-g89e0a492af5bec.
Thanks, that accords with my analysis - the branch in call.cc:compare_ics tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102489
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Macleod ---
This is all very strange. So its a runtime error on those targets?
The code we produce is slightly different, it happens to expose certain
limitations with picking up ranges via dominators when there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104987
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It does trigger execution failures on those targets.
I guess it's possible it's merely exposing existing bugs on those targets. If
we were inlining before, we may have collapsed the test away completely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The VLA bounds were removed from parameter declarations in the fix for pr97172;
there weren't relied on by middle-end warnings then and still aren't today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Incidentally, __builtin_dynamic_object_size returns the size of a VLA parameter
in both mininum and maximum modes. In f0 below, the size of the A array is at
least N bytes but it could be more, so based on m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105004
Bug ID: 105004
Summary: d: internal compiler error: in build_complex, at
tree.c:2358
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I can't speak for Siddhesh, but at least the testcase coverage in r12-6480
only covered the access attribute. So perhaps the fix could be to just limit
to that case if it is possible easily to differentiate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104901
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105005
Bug ID: 105005
Summary: Misleading error message at #line directive with no
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105006
Bug ID: 105006
Summary: ice: tree check: expected function_decl, have
using_decl in maybe_push_used_methods, at
cp/class.cc:1325
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105006
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105005
Luděk Burda changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burda.ludek at seznam dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105005
--- Comment #2 from Luděk Burda ---
the link for my pull request fixing this bug:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/pull/62
attached file is located in gcc/libcpp/directives.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105006
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104901
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104901
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
I think it would still be worthwhile to avoid the antipattern (v == c1 && v ==
c2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104901
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sure, but c1 as well as c2 are not constants here!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104901
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #7)
> I think it would still be worthwhile to avoid the antipattern (v == c1 && v
> == c2).
+1
I haven't got a rs6000 box, but I suspect our old friend -Wlogical-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104999
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=105003
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-21
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, need -fchecking=2:
$ ./cc1plus -quiet variadic-alias3.C -Iinclude
--param=hash-table-verification-limit=1000 -fchecking=2
hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values
wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105007
Bug ID: 105007
Summary: Missing variables at -O2/O3 likely caused by incorrect
debug info after inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105007
--- Comment #1 from Cristian Assaiante ---
The gdb bug report can be found at:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28987
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104901
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
The values depend on the target, but they are genuine compile time constants.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105007
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104911
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fbdaa58162ee4189f441b75170af89215465d189
commit r12-7737-gfbdaa58162ee4189f441b75170af89215465d189
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105004
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dd51373a82408361068e130a84caa888ef0d2b3
commit r12-7738-g1dd51373a82408361068e130a84caa888ef0d2b3
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104911
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105004
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6afd08da387e3161651c8770d5b7d32741f4341
commit r11-9674-ge6afd08da387e3161651c8770d5b7d32741f4341
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105004
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104901
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
$ cat vcc.c
int f(int x) { return x == 31 && x == 42; }
-Wlogical-op gives
vcc.c: In function 'f':
vcc.c:1:31: warning: logical 'and' of mutually exclusive tests is always false
[-Wlogical-op]
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101767
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3e191b4104c7d6a177f66dbb77cabf05ab63781
commit r12-7740-ge3e191b4104c7d6a177f66dbb77cabf05ab63781
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103337
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
commit r12-7741-g24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102740
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
commit r12-7741-g24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103299
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
commit r12-7741-g24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102538
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
commit r12-7741-g24d51e749570dcb85bd43d3b528f58ad6141de26
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103337
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105008
Bug ID: 105008
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'exceptional' (error_mark) in shorten_binary_op, at
c-family/c-common.cc:1400 with unsigned _Fract vector
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
