https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104228
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Known to fail|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
> To "use" means to evaluate. The strict C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
The patch should be further backported if it doesn't cause any issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Emitted binary code changes |Emitted binary code changes
--enable-multiarch
--prefix=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220125 (experimental) [master -gf4ee27d32] (GCC)
$ cat attributes_transformed_program0_preprocessed.c
# 6 ""
short a;
__attribute__((
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104184
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Internal |[11 Regression] Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3e6ef7d873885ffaa0db7f4185364bbd7a70505
commit r12-6872-gf3e6ef7d873885ffaa0db7f4185364bbd7a70505
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
You can still use %= if you want and combine it with the input constraint with
counter.
That is:
void y (int a) {
if (a)
asm("# %="::"i"(__COUNTER__));
else
asm("#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nick Desaulniers from comment #3)
> Thanks for the feedback. I guess I was expecting these two to be somewhat
> equivalent:
>
> void x (int a) {
> if (a)
> asm("#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
--- Comment #3 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Thanks for the feedback. I guess I was expecting these two to be somewhat
equivalent:
void x (int a) {
if (a)
asm("# %0"::"i"(__COUNTER__));
else
asm("# %0"::"i"(__COUNTER__));
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
--- Comment #14 from Levy Hsu ---
Hi Avieira and Richard
I checked the data for the last half month and you are right, that no real
regression was caused. Thank you all for the detailed explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
On the gimple level we have:
if (_2 == 0)
goto ; [10.00%]
else
goto ; [90.00%]
[local count: 966367639]:
_6 = MEM[(struct media_request
*)media_request_object_complete_obj.0_1].state;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104235
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess we want
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
@@ -18574,7 +18574,7 @@ cp_parser_template_name (cp_parser* parser,
: parser->context->object_type);
if (scope && TYPE_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
Bug ID: 104236
Summary: asm statements containing %= assembler templates
getting merged
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This reduces the scope of the problem, but if the directory is replaced with a
symlink *after* constructing the directory_iterator then filesystem::remove can
still remove the wrong things.
We really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84652
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this does not ICE with -std=c++20 but still does with -std=c++17.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104235
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|needs-bisection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104235
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104235
Bug ID: 104235
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: in cp_parser_template_id, at
cp/parser.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think testing __FLT128_IS_IEC_60559__ next to it is fine too, if __float128
and _Float128 exists, they are on all supported targets the same IEEE quad
types, just _Generic doesn't treat them as the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> Shouldn't the __float128 stuff be guarded with
> defined(GFC_REAL_16_IS_FLOAT128) || defined(HAVE_GFC_REAL_17)
We could. My goal was for that header not to depend on libgfortran macros
(meaning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Created attachment 52289
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52289=edit
Tentative patch
Does the attached patch fix the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
--- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
If __FLT128_IS_IEC_60559__ is defined, does it mean that the associated type is
accessible as _Float128?
node_type = _Node_handle_common;
node_type __trans_tmp_1;
};
template struct _Rb_tree {
struct _Rb_tree_impl {
_Rb_tree_impl();
} _M_impl;
};
_Rb_tree _M_tmap_;
```
gcc version 12.0.1 20220125/master, fails with gcc version 11.2.0 as well:
```
repro.cpp:8:28: internal compiler error: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
To "use" means to evaluate. The strict C semantics are that the realloc()
argument becomes indeterminate after the function has returned non-null,
whether or not the returned pointer is the same as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84784
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, the following fixes the ICE:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.cc
index fccf0a9b229..d5564f659f8 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.cc
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84784
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Another reduced testcase:
>
> ! { dg-do run }
> ! { dg-options "-fdefault-integer-8" }
> ! { dg-require-effective-target fortran_integer_16 }
>
> if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84784
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=65343
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We should do something similar in src/c++11/mutex.cc
mutex&
__get_once_mutex()
{
static mutex once_mutex;
return once_mutex;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65343
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Great, thanks for checking it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65343
--- Comment #6 from Marc Poulhiès ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Patch for stage 1:
Thank you ! I can confirm this patch fixes the issue we have on vxworks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104233
Bug ID: 104233
Summary: [12 regression] ieee/issignaling_fallback.h broke
Solaris/SPARC bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104203
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58ec0964b1d2f2ab197916cd661728f6a7a1736b
commit r12-6869-g58ec0964b1d2f2ab197916cd661728f6a7a1736b
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104191
--- Comment #4 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
Well, surrendering at the possibility of huge amount of node allocations,
because there is LWG 2794. (I'd complain this is over-restrictive and pure loss
of functionality for allocators used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61596
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c1f274e3e090ee03bedc22dd7169b28e759974e
commit r12-6868-g5c1f274e3e090ee03bedc22dd7169b28e759974e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104019
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c1f274e3e090ee03bedc22dd7169b28e759974e
commit r12-6868-g5c1f274e3e090ee03bedc22dd7169b28e759974e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e20486d508afdf22790a271e90ca76d8df5fa7a5
commit r12-6867-ge20486d508afdf22790a271e90ca76d8df5fa7a5
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8bd4dc8212e43b2f9af08b80df97f90cdb0df4f
commit r12-6866-gc8bd4dc8212e43b2f9af08b80df97f90cdb0df4f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104227
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=65343
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch for stage 1:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc
@@ -28,6 +28,11 @@
namespace __gnu_internal _GLIBCXX_VISIBILITY(hidden)
{
+ namespace
+ {
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104227
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec543c9833c2d9283c035cd8430849eb4ec04406
commit r12-6865-gec543c9833c2d9283c035cd8430849eb4ec04406
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104226
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52288
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52288=edit
gcc12-pr104226.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104191
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
None of this is ever going to happen in practice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104227
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://bugzilla.redhat.com |https://bugzilla.redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104191
--- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> > and it should be solely determined by the internal node count type.
>
> What is the internal node
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||104075
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232
Bug ID: 104232
Summary: spurious -Wuse-after-free after conditional free
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104231
Bug ID: 104231
Summary: private ignored in non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104187
--- Comment #5 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
So you prefer eg.
g = a[i] - [[gnu::always_inline]] foo(x, y) + 2 * bar();
over
g = a[i] - __builtin_always_inline(foo(x, y)) + 2 * bar();
?
What is your proposed syntax?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104212
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34e8dafb76240f69c729c11cfc8c8fc4f717bc17
commit r12-6864-g34e8dafb76240f69c729c11cfc8c8fc4f717bc17
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Removing the COMPARISON_CLASS_P check regresses uninit-pr74762.C. So how about
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.cc b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
index 22d3dd1e2ad..6534a7fd320 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Summary|[9/10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101532
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #27 from Michael Cronenworth ---
I can also say that gcc 11 has fixed this. Thanks. I'm happy to close as I will
not be using 10.x anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101532
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
commit r12-6863-gbc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
commit r12-6863-gbc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 67804, which changed state.
Bug 67804 Summary: ICE on data initialization of type(character) with wrong data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5f7e0838e1573f4cc33a6f2c70c60187d7a63af
commit r10-10419-ga5f7e0838e1573f4cc33a6f2c70c60187d7a63af
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21551a4af1be07d7b98221639ec1bd18106c1f80
commit r10-10418-g21551a4af1be07d7b98221639ec1bd18106c1f80
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe5cee6f62a0b229d9d51616b7490331d39b5ddd
commit r12-6862-gfe5cee6f62a0b229d9d51616b7490331d39b5ddd
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
(::a))> v3;
| ^
:15:15: error: '&(((int&)(& t)) + 4)' is not a valid template
argument of type 'int&' because '(((int&)(& t)) + 4)' is not a variable
15 | V<(t.*(::b))> v4;
| ^
[1] http://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 25.01.2022 um 19:20 schrieb msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
> I meant to say "C++ made it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #16 from Stas Sergeev ---
I think I'll propose to apply something like this to linux kernel:
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 6f3476dc7873..0549212a8dd6 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275
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=93740
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
I think I was able to narrow it down to the true root cause. Following fails in
all gcc versions that supports C++11 and newer:
struct foo
{
void baz();
void bar();
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I meant to say "C++ made it implementation-defined to use a pointer made
indeterminate by the pointee's lifetime having ended."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The use in your example is undefined in C (as is any other use of an
indeterminate pointer value). C++ made using pointers made it
implementation-defined a few years ago while still allowing for it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104229
Bug ID: 104229
Summary: ICE in gfc_build_null_descriptor, at
fortran/trans-array.cc:536
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275
--- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
Seems to be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104228
Bug ID: 104228
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in df_install_ref, at
df-scan.cc:2294
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104227
Bug ID: 104227
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE virtual memory exhausted:
Cannot allocate memory
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67102
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aeac414923aa1e87986c7fc6f9b921d89a9b86cf
commit r12-6861-gaeac414923aa1e87986c7fc6f9b921d89a9b86cf
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65343
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104226
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103970
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103970
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104226
Bug ID: 104226
Summary: ICE in fold_vec_perm, at fold-const.cc:10483
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
