https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||grgoffe at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100691
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100691
Bug ID: 100691
Summary: Build of gcc fails with "linux/cyclades.h" not found
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
::views::iota(std::ranges::begin(x), std::ranges::cbegin(x) + 3);
r.end() - r.begin();
r.begin() - r.end();
}
:7:22: required from here
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20210519/include/c++/12.0.0/ranges:518:22:
error: 'int* std::ranges::iota_view::_Iterator::_M_value' is
private within
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100659
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100634
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100634
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b54e50285c716fabc3980c5383c4898018a60b28
commit r11-8444-gb54e50285c716fabc3980c5383c4898018a60b28
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100659
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b7212ebb80e854c08274228627ce0a3061db6b0
commit r11-8443-g8b7212ebb80e854c08274228627ce0a3061db6b0
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100634
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75ab8b4829dec8c70470e8225c9add964f71ed74
commit r12-933-g75ab8b4829dec8c70470e8225c9add964f71ed74
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100659
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe9a6614a16b5ea7f12141c50b6b7de984390ed8
commit r12-932-gfe9a6614a16b5ea7f12141c50b6b7de984390ed8
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100689
Bug ID: 100689
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault when using
modules and -g
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, now I am curious why you are using the jit framework rather than doing a
normal GCC front-end; like was done for the other rust gcc front-end
https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98734
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
I develop a gcc codegen for the Rust compiler and it's a feature of Rust to be
able to set the link section:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859
--- Comment #5 from Joseph C. Sible ---
The real problem mentioned in comment 2 still happens as of GCC 11.1. I've
narrowed it down somewhat to the optimization flags "-Og -ftree-dse
-ftree-pta". Removing any one of those will make it behave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am curious what is the use case here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50847
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50847=edit
Patch adding support for setting the link section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100489
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
Bug ID: 100688
Summary: Add support for link section
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100687
Bug ID: 100687
Summary: [modules, concepts] imported concept gives different
result
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100619
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.1.0 |
Summary|[11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100619
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb2a917fa0779b689f09ac8d8c41b0456facbe62
commit r12-930-geb2a917fa0779b689f09ac8d8c41b0456facbe62
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100634
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100619
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100684
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100658
--- Comment #3 from G. Steinmetz ---
> What's wrong about the $ sign?
Nothing, it's about "dollar". I was just surprised that
there was no text snippet "dollar in" in all the sources.
You can ignore this section "Additionally ...",
on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
It's the pointer itself that needs to be volatile to keep GCC from determining
its value. This shows the difference:
$ cat pr99578-15.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall pr99578-15.c
void f (void)
{
void* ptr = (void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100659
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100205
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100644
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100261
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100367
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100367
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bdd3e45955ef94a1f2db51a2af1ded54d41f670
commit r11-8437-g3bdd3e45955ef94a1f2db51a2af1ded54d41f670
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96299
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bdd3e45955ef94a1f2db51a2af1ded54d41f670
commit r11-8437-g3bdd3e45955ef94a1f2db51a2af1ded54d41f670
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100367
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd67343703ef4fa61de837f4690eba70d2760825
commit r12-928-gcd67343703ef4fa61de837f4690eba70d2760825
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96299
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd67343703ef4fa61de837f4690eba70d2760825
commit r12-928-gcd67343703ef4fa61de837f4690eba70d2760825
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93769
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gennaro Prota from comment #2)
> Well, I thought this would require changing a single string literal in the
> compiler source code.
No, there are (at least) 38 diagnostics of the same form.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> For now, I recommend suppressing the warning either by #pragma GCC
> diagnostic or by making the pointer volatile.
Trying this with the code sample from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Macleod ---
> >
> > Would this be useful? and would it solve this problem? I'm sure there are
> > other details to work out related to the increased precision, but it seems
> > like it might work?
>
> Hmm, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97046
José Rui Faustino de Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331
--- Comment #6 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-May/056054.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94327
--- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-May/056054.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93963
--- Comment #4 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-May/056054.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93308
--- Comment #4 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-May/056054.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
Andrew Cooper changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100361
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Amended patch fixes msp430-elf build as well. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14940
--- Comment #52 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. patches need to be posted to the gcc-patches mailing list for review, not
here. https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100686
Bug ID: 100686
Summary: attribute optimize ("O2") doesn't inline lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100683
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-May/056053.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100596
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100596
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:adcb497bdba499d161d2e5e8de782bdd6f75d62c
commit r12-925-gadcb497bdba499d161d2e5e8de782bdd6f75d62c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685
Bug ID: 100685
Summary: #pragma GCC push_options ineffective for optimize
options
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #34 from Tobias Burnus ---
> What's actually the status of the PR – I mean on both powerpc64*-linux-gnu,
> sparc*-*-*.
>
> The summary states that there is an ICE – is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #216 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-17 5:56 a.m., jvb at cyberscience dot com wrote:
> With the working as, I changed gcc to use brl instructions for calls,
> including
> tail calls:
>
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96501
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 96501, which changed state.
Bug 96501 Summary: [C++11] Should warn when classes only have copy constructor
defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96501
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nunoplopes at sapo dot pt
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100680
--- Comment #3 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> The warning is by design: it considers a constant non-null pointer value a
> likely result of (invalid) arithmetic on a null pointer, as in the example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98109
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to James Legg from comment #2)
This is a different problem from the one reported in comment 0 so I opened a
new bug for it: pr100684.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100684
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0, 12.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100682
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100684
Bug ID: 100684
Summary: spurious -Wnonnull with -O1 on a C++ lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100361
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Nice, thanks, Joern. That patch is OK for trunk and gcc-11 (please remember to
CC the libstdc++ list when you post it to gcc-patches).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #21 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hi Srinath,
when we add new assertions to gcc we use always a gcc_checking_assert
nowadays, that is also the case here.
The assertion is only firing in your compiler because it is a development
snapshot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100683
Bug ID: 100683
Summary: Array initialization refuses valid
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100662
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:45:12AM +, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from ripero84 at gmail dot com ---
> Steve, is this a GCC bug or a FreeBSD bug (or if it is something else, what
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100682
Bug ID: 100682
Summary: Outdated manual about the debug mode using
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100361
--- Comment #8 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100680
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at suse dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #20 from SRINATH PARVATHANENI ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
> >
> > --- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100333
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Fixed on trunk for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100333
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b953740da1976d90d974055c6d825c509c6e654
commit r12-923-g5b953740da1976d90d974055c6d825c509c6e654
Author: Alex Coplan
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99977
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c412100235ba34ae9c133fb7a77cc52c2e93fc87
commit r11-8435-gc412100235ba34ae9c133fb7a77cc52c2e93fc87
Author: Christophe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99977
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:beeb01541ae845b445837b873126a7f968b8f654
commit r12-922-gbeeb01541ae845b445837b873126a7f968b8f654
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100681
Bug ID: 100681
Summary: [[noreturn]] attribute can be applied to parameters of
function type with strange results
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100655
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C
@@ -4,6 +4,10 @@
#include
+// Include this to get the libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100630
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100678
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
I ran into this in a different OpenACC context (OpenACC privatization levels),
where in testcases we're trying to use 'atomic' on 'private' variables. ...
which for nvptx offloading only works for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100672
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d51039cb7c807ed84ff7df5416a1e3ba07a5e63
commit r12-913-g8d51039cb7c807ed84ff7df5416a1e3ba07a5e63
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100680
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100680
Bug ID: 100680
Summary: false positive warning for certain __builtin_memcmp()
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100655
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> It's not glibc-specific though, it's going to be in the next POSIX standard
> and other C libraries.
>
> It's a bit of a hack, but you could include any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100658
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32bd0353db37af2cb023e575ed4ce8c944fd9dba
commit r12-912-g32bd0353db37af2cb023e575ed4ce8c944fd9dba
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100658
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100678
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> At this point, it's (a) unclear whether the PR83812 restriction indeed is
> supposed to be lifted for certain modern GPU hardware/SM levels/CUDA Driver
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100675
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #0)
> The following code fails in 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/soGT9o4GY
>
> #include
>
> template
> constexpr bool g() {
> std::string_view s = " ";
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100678
Bug ID: 100678
Summary: [OpenACC/nvptx]
'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/private-atomic-1.c' FAILs
(differently) in certain configurations
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100630
--- Comment #5 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
Thanks for providing a fix that quickly !
I backported it in my own copy of gcc 8 and 9 and it fixed my issue on these
branches as well.
Cheers,
Romain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83812
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1467100fc72562a59f70cdd4e05f6c810d1fadcc
commit r12-908-g1467100fc72562a59f70cdd4e05f6c810d1fadcc
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100661
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100654
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100654
--- Comment #2 from Manfred Schwarb ---
OK, then I will not report such issues in the future and
use --disable-werror per default when using non-standard flags.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100672
--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > > > Maybe sth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100672
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > > Maybe sth is wrong with the testcase? clang also results in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100672
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > Maybe sth is wrong with the testcase? clang also results in an abort.
> > Isn't
> > right-shift of negative
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
