https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> > (In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #2)
> > > > (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > > > W(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #2)
> > (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > > W(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #0)
> > > > Created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
But where? It works with all former versions of gfortran, and it works with
ifort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #2)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > W(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #0)
> > > Created attachment 46763 [details]
> > > Reproducer
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> W(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #0)
> > Created attachment 46763 [details]
> > Reproducer
> >
> > This is a rather recent regression, failing with r274920, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
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=91555
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Richard G. ---
Okay. I'll accept that the code is dodgy. Thanks for looking into this.
I'll keep in mind -fsanitize=undefined as a way of tracking down these issues
in the future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
Bug ID: 91556
Summary: Severe regression with real types
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91547
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I don't think that GCC has '-fsanitizer=unsigned-integer-overflow' option
Yes because it is not useful and causes to print when there is no bug at all
and wrapping behavior is expected. It was a decison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34940
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88702
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #9)
> > If using a switch is better than a series of tests against constants, would
> > it make sense for the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69571
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69572
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Richard G. ---
The most I could tell via strategic printf() calls is that everything appears
to run correctly up until the binary search. I don't think any (unchecked)
overflow is at issue, but it seems I don't have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Daniel Richard G. from comment #6)
> Unfortunately, this GCC build does not have libsanitizer, as it is on an
> older (Linux) system without the necessary system headers.
>
> $ gcc -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Richard G. ---
Unfortunately, this GCC build does not have libsanitizer, as it is on an older
(Linux) system without the necessary system headers.
$ gcc -O2 -fsanitize=undefined gcc9-opt-bug.c -o bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also does -fsanitize=undefined print anything at runtime? If so there is no
bug with GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Richard G. ---
Yes, that is the case:
$ gcc -O2 gcc9-opt-bug.c -o bug
$ ./bug
WRONG 13
result: t = 18446744073709551615 (wrong)
$ gcc -O2 -fwrapv gcc9-opt-bug.c -o bug
$ ./bug
result: t =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
>
> HJ, can you please take the patch from here? Realignment stuff is a bit of
> mistery to me.
I prefer this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
Daniel Richard G. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46761|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91551
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91468
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91555
Bug ID: 91555
Summary: [9.2 regression] Optimizer bug
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69210
--- Comment #1 from Jack Lloyd ---
This still occurs with GCC 9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91496
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91554
Bug ID: 91554
Summary: if (!__builtin_constant_p (x)) warning_function()
works in inline when x is int, not when x is void *
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91549
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This might strictly conform to the requirements, but it's stupid. Why would you
do that?
Allocator equality doesn't care about the value type, as evidenced by the
requirement that a==b is equivalent to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37073
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |andreast at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40976
Bug 40976 depends on bug 91390, which changed state.
Bug 91390 Summary: treatment of extra parameter in a subroutine call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91473
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 26 20:05:32 2019
New Revision: 274937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274937=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran/91473
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 26 20:05:32 2019
New Revision: 274937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274937=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91390
PR fortran/91473
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91553
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91553
Bug ID: 91553
Summary: ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.c:2208
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91552
Bug ID: 91552
Summary: ICE with valid array constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91551
Bug ID: 91551
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in sort_actual, at
fortran/intrinsic.c:4193
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91550
Bug ID: 91550
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in do_subscript, at
fortran/frontend-passes.c:2652
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Aug 26 18:29:45 2019
New Revision: 274933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274933=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83431 - -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report
truncation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #25 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-26 10:55 a.m., marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This is a rebased patch candidate (without debugging output). The patch should
> work for you. Can you please test it as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91468
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46756|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46755|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84911
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Did you try if -fstack-clash-protection provides a better failure mode? It
> might be required to reliably detect that "end of the stack" case.
No, just a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No, I do not use -enable-werror-always. I try to do as little as possible to
change the standard configuration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #3 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
>
> This type does not meet the allocator requirements. For a valid allocator,
> A::rebind::other must
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91549
rdapp at linux dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91549
Bug ID: 91549
Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/wrapped-binop-simplify.c fails
starting with r274925
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|Regression in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #22 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-08-26 10:55 a.m., marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This is a rebased patch candidate (without debugging output). The patch should
> work for you. Can you please test it as well?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46758
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46758=edit
Clean up patch that should work
This is a rebased patch candidate (without debugging output). The patch should
work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Oleksandr Kulkov from comment #5)
> > 1. At least, Jonathan suggested to start with fixing this in
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91548
Bug ID: 91548
Summary: Regression in constexpr evaluation of std::array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91545
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 26 14:39:08 2019
New Revision: 274930
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274930=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/91545 - ICE in constexpr store evaluation.
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91545
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46751|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87206
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Gentle ping. Is there a way to make this work? I could look into implementing
this if someone points me in the right direction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91547
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #19 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 46756
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46756=edit
Output from step 3 (readelf)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #18 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 46755
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46755=edit
Output from step 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #17 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 46754
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46754=edit
.o file from step 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91541
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> Case:
>
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> struct A : std::allocator>
> {
> template
> struct rebind
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Oleksandr Kulkov from comment #5)
> 1. At least, Jonathan suggested to start with fixing this in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-07/msg00066.html , so it doesn't seem
> hopeless for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91536
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91545
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 46753
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46753=edit
Conditionally generate DRAP reg for realigned stack
This should be the correct patch, we call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
--- Comment #5 from Oleksandr Kulkov ---
Hi. I'm not Zlobober, I'm adamant.
1. At least, Jonathan suggested to start with fixing this in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-07/msg00066.html , so it doesn't seem
hopeless for now
2. I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
Oleksandr Kulkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tadeus.prastowo at unitn dot it
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91547
Bug ID: 91547
Summary: std::string_view find_last_not_of can trigger unsigned
integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91545
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91522
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 26 10:35:59 2019
New Revision: 274926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274926=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Richard Biener
PR target/91522
PR target/91527
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91527
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 26 10:35:59 2019
New Revision: 274926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274926=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Richard Biener
PR target/91522
PR target/91527
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91546
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, I believe this is done on purpose. With -Os we generate
test2:
.LFB5270:
.cfi_startproc
vmovd %edx, %xmm2
vmovd %edi, %xmm3
vpinsrd $1, %ecx, %xmm2, %xmm1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91546
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Instruction count is not everything.
If instructions can be executed/issued together (I don't know x86 processors
that well), then GCC produces is better.
E.g.
clock 0
vmovd xmm2, edx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91306
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > (gdb) p x_rtl.drap_reg
> > $1 = (rtx) 0x0
> >
> > so
> >
> > 7843 /* Only need to push parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91526
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 26 09:29:07 2019
New Revision: 274922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274922=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91526
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> (gdb) p x_rtl.drap_reg
> $1 = (rtx) 0x0
>
> so
>
> 7843 /* Only need to push parameter pointer reg if it is caller
> saved. */
> 7844 if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91546
Bug ID: 91546
Summary: Better solution for VEC_INIT under TARGET_SSE4_1 since
PINSRB/PINSRD/PINSRQ
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #39 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: luoxhu
Date: Mon Aug 26 08:53:27 2019
New Revision: 274921
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274921=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r274411 from trunk to gcc-9-branch
Backport r274411 of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91543
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Did you try if -fstack-clash-protection provides a better failure mode? It
might be required to reliably detect that "end of the stack" case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91478
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46751=edit
Debugging patch
Can you please apply the patch and run something like:
$ gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 46746
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46746=edit
> gcc10-pr91530.patch
>
> Does the following patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91528
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Building libada with -march=westmere and forcing STV (cost model turned off)
causes a (related?)
/abuild/rguenther/obj/./gcc/xgcc -B/abuild/rguenther/obj/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91545
Bug ID: 91545
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected field_decl,
have var_decl in cxx_eval_store_expression, at
cp/constexpr.c:3852
Product: gcc
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
