https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #11)
> We can assume that the result of a POINTER_PLUS is non-null if either
> argument is non-null. So X + constant is always non-null. X + Y would be
> non-null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
Bug 42108 depends on bug 42436, which changed state.
Bug 42436 Summary: VRP should mark non-trapping integer divisions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42436
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
Bug 85316 depends on bug 42436, which changed state.
Bug 42436 Summary: VRP should mark non-trapping integer divisions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42436
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42436
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #7 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
This struct definition:
```
struct A {
struct B {
int i = 0;
B() {}
};
A(B = {});
};
```
is accepted by GCC, but another one ({} replaced with = default) is not:
```
struct C {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
Bug ID: 104000
Summary: Ordinary constructor cannot delegate to `consteval`
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94790
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12 for x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94790
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f19303ada7db92c155332e7ba317233ca05946b
commit r12-6538-g5f19303ada7db92c155332e7ba317233ca05946b
Author: Haochen Jiang
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82028
--- Comment #4 from jon_y <10walls at gmail dot com> ---
I can't seem to change the bug status to confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> > It seems to be fixed on latest trunk, or maybe latent?
>
> That was PR 103971 I think.
Which was fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> It seems to be fixed on latest trunk, or maybe latent?
That was PR 103971 I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> r12-6420 also causes
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr94494.c (internal compiler error: in operator[], at
> vec.h:889)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr94494.c (test for excess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2022-January/076174.html
> between commit r12-6426 and commit r12-6419
Cause by r12-6420
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103999
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
the difference between sum_reduce_cd and sum_reduce is one is 1.0 which is
double and another is 1.0f which doesn't need any conversion and truncation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103999
Bug ID: 103999
Summary: Vectorizer failed to reduce sum with conversion.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc.target/i386/pr88531-??. |[12 Regression]
|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||103997
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org,
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes32
# of unexpected failures20
/usr/src/gcc/obj/gcc/xgcc version 12.0.0 20220112 (experimental) (GCC)
make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc/obj/gcc'
None of this was present when I bootstrapped/regtested 24 hours ago with
r12-6420 reverted.
If I revert r12-6523 and r12-6420 on current trunk, then all these pass again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103985
--- Comment #4 from Dr. Thomas Orgis ---
I can try to roll a build and squeeze some test runs in. Naturally, this will
take a few days to get some statistical confidence and it depends on cluster
load, too.
So a snapshot of 12 would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
--- Comment #3 from Michele Martone ---
Comment on attachment 52175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52175
output by running 'make'
For reference, I add here the output of 'make' with the defect.
The program is being built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
--- Comment #2 from Michele Martone ---
Created attachment 52175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52175=edit
output by running 'make'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103992
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103221
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
We probably do need to revisit some pass ordering. I hope to do even less
propagation within the VRPs next release, so I would expect running copyprop
afterwards would be worthwhile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
--- Comment #6 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103617
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103221
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102401
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, since r12-5789-gc57c910c945ac68ba9a7cda9b0f963173781d58c
GCC implements https://wg21.link/P1272 which clarifies that the #c0 testcase is
invalid.
With unsigned char or std::byte instead of char in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> > Now, as Richi's warning isn't in GCC 12, quickest/safest temporary fix
> > would be
> > to revert to previous behavior for IF_STMT_CONSTEXPR_P and
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #30 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Daniel Scharrer from comment #29)
> Hi, shouldn't this be
>
> Known to fail 10.3.**1**
> Known to work 10.3.**2**
No, 10.3.1 means the development branch that the 10.4.0 release will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103941
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb46559cea1d554cef1138db5bfbdd0647ffbc0d
commit r12-6535-gcb46559cea1d554cef1138db5bfbdd0647ffbc0d
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #29 from Daniel Scharrer ---
Hi, shouldn't this be
Known to fail 10.3.**1**
Known to work 10.3.**2**
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103935
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
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=103997
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
Bug ID: 103997
Summary: gcc.target/i386/pr88531-??.c scan-assembler-times
FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 12.01.2022 um 17:33 schrieb jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103935
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1503b9a3d2f480d3df42823cd47c3b6c12f5564
commit r12-6534-ge1503b9a3d2f480d3df42823cd47c3b6c12f5564
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98026
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100637
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
Pavel M changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.morozkin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We can assume that the result of a POINTER_PLUS is non-null if either argument
is non-null. So X + constant is always non-null. X + Y would be non-null if
either X or Y is known to be non-null.
If we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|conj() ignored with tree|[11/12 Regression] conj()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100637
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5193e352981fab8441c600b0a50efe1f30c1d30
commit r12-6533-gb5193e352981fab8441c600b0a50efe1f30c1d30
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103861
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5193e352981fab8441c600b0a50efe1f30c1d30
commit r12-6533-gb5193e352981fab8441c600b0a50efe1f30c1d30
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Enhancement: Better |Provide Better diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103993
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||100406
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103996
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++ front-end produces:
: In function 'void f()':
:4:10: error: invalid types '[int]' for array subscript
4 | index[0] = 0;
| ^
Which seems better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103996
Bug ID: 103996
Summary: Enhancement: Better diagnostic for invalid reuse of a
function name
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103980
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ryan from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > It might be the case Wdouble-promotion is just useless on s390 if you
> > configure your compiler with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
--- Comment #1 from Michele Martone ---
Small correction: the URL in the link above should have been just
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-11.2.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
(top of the page).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103995
Bug ID: 103995
Summary: conj() ignored with tree loop vectorizer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103980
--- Comment #8 from Ryan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> It might be the case Wdouble-promotion is just useless on s390 if you
> configure your compiler with --enable-s390-excess-float-precision which was
> only added for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103831
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103831
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #2)
> Please let me add a digression, is the standard overconstrained the
> definition of tiny_range?
> In the current standard, it seems that only single_view and empty_view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103831
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:614a9580d4463c4aefd74c40ed46bfab2bef65c7
commit r11-9456-g614a9580d4463c4aefd74c40ed46bfab2bef65c7
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102935
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For consteval if I guess we could do:
--- gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c.jj 2022-01-11 23:11:22.091294356 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c2022-01-12 17:57:18.232202275 +0100
@@ -313,6 +313,13 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102935
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18d88d11973c63bda4e586b979b71d48c1d9b78a
commit r12-6532-g18d88d11973c63bda4e586b979b71d48c1d9b78a
Author: Michael Meissner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103994
Bug ID: 103994
Summary: Module ICE in mark_by_value, at cp/module.cc:4772
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103992
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the more permanent solution, perhaps making the other branch
__builtin_unreachable() if it doesn't fall through is too expensive and we
should just arrange for the pre- r12-5638 behavior where we in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103993
--- Comment #1 from JohnJiming Lindal ---
Created attachment 52171
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52171=edit
preprocessed output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103993
Bug ID: 103993
Summary: Incorrect error generated by mismatched-new-delete
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod ---
We currently get everything except the last tidbit.
a_1(D) int * VARYING
:
x_2 = a_1(D) == 0B;
a_3 = a_1(D) + 40;
return x_2;
When we see
a_3 = a_1(D) + 40;
Are we allowed to assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103992
Bug ID: 103992
Summary: common_iterator(const common_iterator<_It2, _Sent2>&
__x) uses new instead of construct_at
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
--- Comment #8 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch Jeff mentioned is this:
[vect] PR103971, PR103977: Fix epilogue mode selection for autodetect only
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-vect-loop.c (vect-analyze-loop): Handle scenario where target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103971
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42436
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
What needs to be done here? anything?
Looking at VRP1, there is only a single divide left at that point:
countm1.6_54 = _12 / _13;
and VRP1 is setting the global range of _13 to:
_13: unsigned int [2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
--- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for confirming that Jeff :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe better:
struct S { ~S(); };
int
foo ()
{
S s;
if constexpr (true)
return 0;
else
return 1;
}
#if __cpp_if_consteval >= 202106L
constexpr int
bar ()
{
S s;
if consteval
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103977
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And just to follow-up. With the patch that was committed to the trunk, the 30+
targets that were previously failing are now working.
A few are still building, but I expect them to succeed. mips* is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103991
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly bigger testcase that shows that also consteval if is affected:
struct S { ~S(); };
int
foo ()
{
S s;
if constexpr (true)
return 0;
else
return 1;
}
#if __cpp_if_consteval >= 202106L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103720
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103720
--- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
this is fixed with the following commit in gcc12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2022-January/359118.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98737
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52170
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52170=edit
gcc12-pr98737-canon.patch
Untested patch to fix up if users misuse the fetch_op or op_fetch atomic when
they should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103978
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103551
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75845d584f490c294d40908168e5721adc38145d
commit r12-6529-g75845d584f490c294d40908168e5721adc38145d
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103551
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77184b7446196eae1a70452939ccd3e99e0d2e3b
commit r12-6528-g77184b7446196eae1a70452939ccd3e99e0d2e3b
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97444
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 52169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52169=edit
Tentative patch, __atomic_exchange only
Code generated for the generic case:
...
{ // Atomic exchange -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 103990, which changed state.
Bug 103990 Summary: 541.leela_r slower by 4.5-6% with PGO+LTO -Ofast
-march=native in the first week of January 2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103990
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103990
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f62294dec1f3af59dd7505c058b0af38c2d1524
commit r12-6527-g2f62294dec1f3af59dd7505c058b0af38c2d1524
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103225
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103940
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103940
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c16dfe6268eeeb4b7924ff423e274fa00894a4d
commit r12-6526-g2c16dfe6268eeeb4b7924ff423e274fa00894a4d
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103533
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c16dfe6268eeeb4b7924ff423e274fa00894a4d
commit r12-6526-g2c16dfe6268eeeb4b7924ff423e274fa00894a4d
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103990
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
>
> should fix that
I can confirm that it does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82028
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #2 from
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
