https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105052
Bug ID: 105052
Summary: Incorrect constraint on SSSE3 split patterns with MMX
operands
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105051
--- Comment #2 from Godmar Back ---
Thank you for your reply.
To make sure I understand, the only work-around is to completely disable all
builtins (as in -fno-builtin), or is using `-fno-builtin-memset` as I proposed
sufficient?
I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78074
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||godmar at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105051
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105051
Bug ID: 105051
Summary: consider not combining malloc + memset to calloc when
inside calloc itself
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Does not enabling sanitizer improve things?
Removing the sanitizer options speeds up the non-analyzer part of the build,
reducing the overall wallclock time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66390
tornenvi at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f6197d7c197f9d2b7fb2e1a19dac39a023755e8
commit r12-7809-g5f6197d7c197f9d2b7fb2e1a19dac39a023755e8
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103533
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:319ba7e241e7e21f9eb481f075310796f13d2035
commit r12-7808-g319ba7e241e7e21f9eb481f075310796f13d2035
Author: Avinash Sonawane
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
So, similar code to what we have in rs6000_call_aix to handle
if ((INTVAL (cookie) & CALL_LONG) != 0
&& GET_CODE (func_desc) == SYMBOL_REF)
should be added to rs6000_sibcall_aix, I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
I'm sorry, I forgot exactly what was happening when I talked about this on the
call. What I should have said is that -mlongcall code is correct but is
missing a sibcall optimisation. -fno-plt code (after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105050
Bug ID: 105050
Summary: error: expression '' is not a constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104284
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fdac7e16c940fb6264e6ddaf99c761f1a64a054
commit r12-7805-g9fdac7e16c940fb6264e6ddaf99c761f1a64a054
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
c version 12.0.1 20220324 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546
--- Comment #31 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::construct_at and std::destroy_at are in alongside
std::_Construct and std::_Destroy. But the latter need iterator category
definitions for destroying sequences. std::construct_at and std::destroy_at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90181
--- Comment #10 from Elliott M ---
Eyes must have glazed over when trying to find other reports. 105048 is indeed
a duplicate.
Another option might be "R" for architectures which haven't
already grabbed "R" for something else. I notice Clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90181
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ehem+gccbugs at m5p dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105048
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105046
Elliott M changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
--- Comment #6 from Elliott M ---
That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105048
--- Comment #1 from Elliott M ---
Created attachment 52684
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52684=edit
Sample of with and without this feature
Hmm, Bugzilla attachment during initial submission failed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105048
Bug ID: 105048
Summary: [enhancement] Allow specific register constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: inline-asm
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4)
> Do check that the result is not a direct call. I think I was wrong to say
> the assert could be removed (or modified as you have done).
I'm assuming you mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105046
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, but it doesn't force the input to be an lvalue.
You can add variables even in macros in statement expressions,
#define FOO(whatever) \
({ int dummy; __asm ("" : "=c" (dummy) : ...); retval; })
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105047
Bug ID: 105047
Summary: invalid non-dependent call to non-static member of the
current instantiation not rejected ahead of time
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50549
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=105046
Elliott M changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
--- Comment #4 from Elliott M ---
I had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105043
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> it's not *just* a glibc feature; Darwin Libc uses the same macro, too, for
> example
Yes and Darwin (and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) should document it in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105043
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105046
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105046
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105046
Bug ID: 105046
Summary: [enhancement] Allow inline-assembly clobbers to
overlap inputs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: inline-asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:346ab5a54a831ad9c78afcbd8dfe98e0e07e3070
commit r12-7804-g346ab5a54a831ad9c78afcbd8dfe98e0e07e3070
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> > IIUC as long as NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR doesn't appear inside a non-dependent
> > consteval call then we'll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102990
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102990
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0530882d99abc410bb080051aa04e5cea848f18
commit r12-7803-gf0530882d99abc410bb080051aa04e5cea848f18
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103775
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52682
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52682=edit
gcc12-pr103775.patch
This untested patch seems to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105006
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105045
Bug ID: 105045
Summary: [modules] Can't deduce defaulted template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:647537adefb34041cc2d44585252fd765cc0daae
commit r12-7802-g647537adefb34041cc2d44585252fd765cc0daae
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52681
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52681=edit
gcc12-pr103691.patch
Untested FE patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> IIUC as long as NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR doesn't appear inside a non-dependent
> consteval call then we'll currently correctly accept/reject it ahead of
> time, e.g.:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101906
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW one workaround is to use a class template instead of an alias template,
e.g.
-template using voidify = void;
+template struct voidify {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103662
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> This one is valid, but before your r12-7264 was incorrectly rejected because
> 8 * baz (0) etc. is wrapped in NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99309
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
The issue for FRE is that we have
[local count: 10737416]:
step.val = 610334368;
value.val = 1;
goto ; [100.00%]
[local count: 1073741824]:
# __1 = PHI <0(2), __11(4)>
if (__1 != 100)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
The reason that the two tests in constexpr-if2.C don't fail with -fchecking=2
after r12-7264 seems to be a latent bug. The error comes from the call to
fold_non_dependent_expr in build_non_dependent_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104964
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
You should see the difference in between -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 in the attached pre-processed source files.
$ gcc fs2.i -c -O2 -Werror
$ gcc fs3.i -c -O2 -Werror
In file included from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104964
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52680
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52680=edit
libacl/__acl_to_any_text.c with FS == 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104964
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52679=edit
libacl/__acl_to_any_text.c with FS == 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
Some context: consider the simplified/extended C++20 testcase (the consteval-if
seems to be a red herring):
consteval int foo(int x) { return x; }
template
void bar(int x)
{
constexpr int y = 0;
foo(8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105036
--- Comment #2 from Cristian Assaiante ---
Indeed, we understand some information may be lost for the sake of keeping
debug info correct.
We reported this in the first place because, besides the missing variables, a
wrong function (i.e., foo)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105014
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Minimal test-case:
...
void __attribute__((noinline)) foo (unsigned long long d0) {
unsigned long long __a;
__a = 0x38;
for (; __a > 0; __a -= 8)
if (((d0 >> __a) & 0xff) != 0)
break;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104564
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104975
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103302
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105039
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104564
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb488cba571539b6644e8f99f1dd997cdb4c82c1
commit r12-7801-gfb488cba571539b6644e8f99f1dd997cdb4c82c1
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104975
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8c4171ebd72079e55aceadbcfc883f517cdf895
commit r12-7800-gb8c4171ebd72079e55aceadbcfc883f517cdf895
Author: Alexandre Oliva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #54 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #53)
> > Yes, I forgot to mention that.
> > I hope you are right and someone will make these backports in 10.1, 10.2,
> > 10.3, 11.1, 11.2.
>
> Note one can't rewrite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #53 from Martin Liška ---
> Yes, I forgot to mention that.
> I hope you are right and someone will make these backports in 10.1, 10.2,
> 10.3, 11.1, 11.2.
Note one can't rewrite history, but as written, pull the gcc-11 branch and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #52 from Martin Liška ---
It's fixed on master with r12-3350-g88974974d8188cf1 and it *got* backported to
gcc-11 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #51 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #50)
> Your reproducer does pass in trunk. So perhaps just a missing backport.
Yes, I forgot to mention that.
I hope you are right and someone will make these backports in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #50 from Avi Kivity ---
Your reproducer does pass in trunk. So perhaps just a missing backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105011
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105011
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11fb784ac592567dbcb7874c27e67ee0feb8fbf0
commit r12-7799-g11fb784ac592567dbcb7874c27e67ee0feb8fbf0
Author: Tom de Vries
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Mkkt Bkkt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valera.mironow at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105043
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105037
--- Comment #2 from Christian Friedl ---
> What do you think is wrong?
The lines
IF(IREST.EQ.0) THEN
CALL WO2(1,N1,N2,O2)
ENRGOLD=EMP2
get emitted twice when -finit-real=snan is used. The first time that they are
emitted,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105035
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] tree |[11 Regression] tree check:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:568377743e22c1377d0aaa1ac9113da3ff1b6bd4
commit r12-7798-g568377743e22c1377d0aaa1ac9113da3ff1b6bd4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105035
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8698ff67cdff4364c8adad2921ed532359a155ec
commit r12-7797-g8698ff67cdff4364c8adad2921ed532359a155ec
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105043
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
This isn't really a GCC bug since it's a glibc feature. Please open a
bugreport on sourceware.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105044
Bug ID: 105044
Summary: [modules] ICE in comptypes, at cp/typeck.c:1529
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104822
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105043
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Currently the only documentation is in .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105043
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104767
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104767
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d800a6f6c03e404a5f033299d9fd1c5caa3b7738
commit r10-10511-gd800a6f6c03e404a5f033299d9fd1c5caa3b7738
Author: Pascal Obry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104767
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c649dc71189f20ab8ed09b03a7353299f1022c8
commit r11-9691-g4c649dc71189f20ab8ed09b03a7353299f1022c8
Author: Pascal Obry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105043
Bug ID: 105043
Summary: Please document -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104767
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d937c6e44ba64694c0fc88f40f42390149d1d624
commit r12-7796-gd937c6e44ba64694c0fc88f40f42390149d1d624
Author: Pascal Obry
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104767
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GNAT.Serial_Communications |[10/11/12 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94181
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104985
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
With the following debugging patch:
diff --git a/gcc/combine.cc b/gcc/combine.cc
index 8f06ee0e54f..150cc6fae1b 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.cc
+++ b/gcc/combine.cc
@@ -4755,6 +4755,7 @@ undo_to_marker (void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105042
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Doesn't whatever driver/library API we use from libgomp to invoke workloads
> report actual errors? Maybe we need to improve there.
Good point, it reported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104703
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1d233e3334df07cfb4f732ace4d93d3cbc28bca
commit r12-7794-gc1d233e3334df07cfb4f732ace4d93d3cbc28bca
Author: Siddhesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|Wrong array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283
--- Comment #16 from Yann Droneaud ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
> I have a patch which fixes all the testcases here.
I've checked my test cases using godbolt gcc trunk, and, yeah, thanks a lot !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104994
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72124f487ccb5c8065dd5f7b8fba254600b7e611
commit r12-7793-g72124f487ccb5c8065dd5f7b8fba254600b7e611
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
