https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
--- Comment #8 from Federico Kircheis ---
> There is though, on line 10.
You are correct, I wonder how I could not see it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102482
--- Comment #4 from Federico Kircheis ---
Note that following equivalent snippet
#include
struct span {
span(std::initializer_list il) noexcept : begin(nullptr),
size(il.size()) { begin = il.begin();}
const int* begin;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102525
Bug ID: 102525
Summary: error: failed to read compiled module: Bad file data
when trying to use modules possible 98944 regression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102467
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102467
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102474
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I did a git bisect, and it reported that the problem was introduced by
commit f5ff3a8ed4ca91737c16757ce4938cf2e0187fc0
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Sat Aug 28 20:57:08 2021 +0200
Improve handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102524
Bug ID: 102524
Summary: [modules] Missing diagnostic when an exported
namespace is empty
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 99909, which changed state.
Bug 99909 Summary: The value of 'std::is_integral_v' is not usable in a
constant expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99909
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99909
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99909
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:daa762f01d8cf932484b7df122a5e872439bc92c
commit r12-3950-gdaa762f01d8cf932484b7df122a5e872439bc92c
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #45 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to niek from comment #43)
> Does this mean (and could you please reconfirm) that bug 95317 has
> disappeared in trunk (which will become GCC 12)?
Hi,
I am not working on a project
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102520
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe ---
folks, despite that this particular problem is of concern - I have been working
on changes that are needed for correctness (with or without sanitisers!) as any
specific fix for this PR would depend on those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102523
Bug ID: 102523
Summary: Assume -fvar-tracking -fvar-tracking-assignments when
compiling with -O0 -g
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32122
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e12f66d96fe41c8ef8a0d01b6a8394cd6bce3978
commit r12-3947-ge12f66d96fe41c8ef8a0d01b6a8394cd6bce3978
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
It's interesting that VSX reg costs is 4000, but the FPR and Altivec regs are
cost zero like GPRs. I wonder why that is. These look like d-form memory
accesses and we don't have d-form Altivec memory ops,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #43 from niek ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #29)
> Created attachment 48771 [details]
> Testcase without lambda coroutines
>
> I modified the testcase to also build with clang and not depend on async
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
So we have the following during IRA:
(insn 7 2 8 2 (set (reg:SI 120 [ barD.3297 ])
(mem/c:SI (plus:DI (unspec:DI [
(symbol_ref:DI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102521
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102520
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102518
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510
--- Comment #4 from Dalon Work ---
No, I don't think there is more to expect. My mistaken assumption was that the
return value of the function had to be a contiguous array of 8 elements. I
don't find this to be a stupid assumption, since the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102522
Bug ID: 102522
Summary: Multiplication by scalar on arm-v7 seems to generate
scalar code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102521
Bug ID: 102521
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6240
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102520
Bug ID: 102520
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_constructor, at
fortran/array.c:1802
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It helps to look at the (Fortran) context. As written, the subroutine version
is declared with explicit size contiguous arrays. If the caller has a
non-contiguous (strided) result array, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fae627162d5f8cfb273b10349883eeb74baaa43f
commit r12-3932-gfae627162d5f8cfb273b10349883eeb74baaa43f
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519
Bug ID: 102519
Summary: [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2b7f56a15d9cbbd2f0db22e0e39c4dd161bab69
commit r12-3930-gf2b7f56a15d9cbbd2f0db22e0e39c4dd161bab69
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102518
Bug ID: 102518
Summary: [11/12 regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: einline in
gimplify_modify_expr at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102501
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Does this fix the problem on your end?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580411.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100583
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102501
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101985
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Kunwar, can you please tell us (if you don't mind) where the problem was
detected? Since we're changing behavior of the intrinsic, we'll need to
document this, and knowing whether we have problematic code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102517
Bug ID: 102517
Summary: [12 regression] regressions on aarch64 since r12-3899
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is no longer failing for me. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102516
Bug ID: 102516
Summary: [12 regression] pr65947-13.c and vect-alias-check-18.c
fail on armeb since r12-3893
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> > Describing the process to get here makes it abundantly clear that we need to
> > improve the process of
OLLECT_GCC=../gcc/results/bin/arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/pi/gcc/results.20210928/libexec/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/12.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
Configured with: ../trunk/configure --prefix=/home/pi/gcc/results.20210928
--disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r11-3699-g4e62aca0e0520e4ed2532f2d8153581190621c1a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496
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=96416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510
--- Comment #2 from Dalon Work ---
Thanks for the information. Based on your comments, I've created 2 new
subroutines that call the "bad" function. The first places the result in a
contiguous array, while the second places the result in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e7da0da76fc6c2ef19635bc5dd507789965da33
commit r11-9036-g8e7da0da76fc6c2ef19635bc5dd507789965da33
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Note the commit in comment 4 does not solve the problem that
the hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 target in does not support TImode alias __int128
(yet)
However, when building libgomp without Fortran support, it now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f0a57bd54aed558e0167016dd980177f88f8480
commit r12-3927-g1f0a57bd54aed558e0167016dd980177f88f8480
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, clang documents:
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow: Signed integer overflow, where the result
of a signed integer computation cannot be represented in its type. This
includes all the checks covered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I see - I wonder whether we should do || sanitize_flags_p
(SANITIZE_SI_OVERFLOW) for this specific case.
For -ftrapv I also really was looking at instrumentation from the frontend
rather than from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
ubsan already handles that in c-family/c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_division).
But we don't have an ifn for that. And it is not covered by
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515
Bug ID: 102515
Summary: UBSAN misses signed division instrumentation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbed1c8693c6b5cb02c903cea91db574200bd513
commit r12-3922-gdbed1c8693c6b5cb02c903cea91db574200bd513
Author: Ilya Leoshkevich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102504
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=102498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10 Regression] Long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6de756d7a7a72ad67eaba33e6102c2e4874bf6e6
commit r11-9035-g6de756d7a7a72ad67eaba33e6102c2e4874bf6e6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b7041e8345c2f1030e58620f28e22d64b2c196b
commit r12-3920-g3b7041e8345c2f1030e58620f28e22d64b2c196b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99793
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99793
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34b1e44e166c58df20a15cb35b6cc8d4d299d415
commit r12-3919-g34b1e44e166c58df20a15cb35b6cc8d4d299d415
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A test had to be changed due to the new (much better) diagnostic:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r12-1822
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97233
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
After the fix for PR10112 we still need to handle the case to insert an
additional hashtable entry when we found a value to CSE to (see comment #1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62137
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-14 00:00:00 |2021-9-28
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-03-19 00:00:00 |2021-9-28
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b8b1522e04adc20980f396571be1929a32d148a
commit r12-3918-g5b8b1522e04adc20980f396571be1929a32d148a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17896
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101641
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Wow, and this time it's even combine coming into play!
(insn 10 9 11 2 (set (reg/v:DI 82 [ xy ])
(mem/j:DI (reg/v/f:DI 86 [ pu ]) [2 pu_6(D)->y+0 S8 A64])) "t.i":12:8
76 {*movdi_internal}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.2.0, 12.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102492
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f07769057c45ec9e751ab1c23e0fe4750102840
commit r12-3917-g4f07769057c45ec9e751ab1c23e0fe4750102840
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55616
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC 8+ does not warn any more. I Have not checked why yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-05-14 00:00:00 |2021-9-28
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49510
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb8b72ebb5b0bf40f7dfef9154c42320ce46f2a7
commit r12-3916-gfb8b72ebb5b0bf40f7dfef9154c42320ce46f2a7
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102512
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> max_9 = *p_8(D);
> _10 = {max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9};
> vect__4.7_13 = MEM [(short int *)p_8(D)];
> vect_max_11.8_14 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102514
Bug ID: 102514
Summary: The allocation function shall not be called when
existing an erroneous expression in
noptr-new-declarator
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95550
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Gribov ---
The promised repro:
SUBROUTINE FOO()
INTEGER :: I
COMPLEX(8), ALLOCATABLE :: GWORK(:)
ALLOCATE(GWORK(512))
!$ACC PARALLEL LOOP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32023
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-11-14 23:41:14 |2021-9-28
--- Comment #12 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102230
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eea10afef71e1947e3a3fde2a44839054ab91967
commit r12-3914-geea10afef71e1947e3a3fde2a44839054ab91967
Author: Hongyu Wang
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
Bug ID: 102513
Summary: False positive -Wstringop-overflow= or -Warray-bounds
warning with recursive function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-09-13 12:37:20 |2021-9-28
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
