https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105953
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by hongtao Liu
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bac09a893145056217b1e9a0054466a770815c43
commit r12-8482-gbac09a893145056217b1e9a0054466a770815c43
Author: liuhongt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105953
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b1a827f024234aaf83ecfe90415e88b525d3969
commit r13-1099-g4b1a827f024234aaf83ecfe90415e88b525d3969
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041
Surya Kumari Jangala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
r13-1092-20220614173648-g3e16b4359e8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220614 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101666
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
aarch64 GCC is able to compile it to:
f(unsigned int, unsigned int):
cmp w1, 0
ccmpw1, w0, 2, ne
csetw0, ls
ret
While aarch64 LLVM does:
sub w8, w1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105983
Bug ID: 105983
Summary: Failure to optimize (b != 0) && (a >= b) as well as
the same pattern with binary and
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105982
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-06-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105982
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 53138
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53138=edit
-freport-bug output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
grep shows:
common.opt:Common Alias(Wattribute_alias=, 1, 0) Warning
common.opt:Common Alias(Wimplicit-fallthrough=,3,0) Warning
c-family/c.opt:C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Warning Alias(Warray-parameter=, 2, 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105982
Bug ID: 105982
Summary: [13 Regression] internal compiler error: in
lookup_template_class, at cp/pt.cc:10361
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #29 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
> (In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #27)
> > > Wouldn't this be -fno-strict-flex-arrays, i.e. the current behaviour?
> >
> > Yes, it’s the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105957
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6abe341558abec40c9c44d76e7fb4fb3978e894b
commit r13-1096-g6abe341558abec40c9c44d76e7fb4fb3978e894b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b65779f46f16b4fffd0591f5e58722c1e7cde8d
commit r13-1095-g1b65779f46f16b4fffd0591f5e58722c1e7cde8d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105957
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a9af7b4ef1b8aa85cc8820acf54d41d1569fc10
commit r13-1093-g0a9af7b4ef1b8aa85cc8820acf54d41d1569fc10
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Could you point to a specific test and give command-line arguments?
I'm not set up to do an nvptx test run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Anyway, there's likely an ordering issue looking at array bounds and using
them. Moving the type decl to a module, the problem seems to disappear:
module m
implicit none
integer, parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Reduced testcase:
>
> integer, parameter :: m = sizeof(d) ! ICE for n < 1
In target-memory.cc we run into int_size_in_bytes(), which returns -12
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97944
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29b676bcf10b0a6c04e8acdf91f18b28bf5b1501
commit r10-10835-g29b676bcf10b0a6c04e8acdf91f18b28bf5b1501
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105981
Bug ID: 105981
Summary: Wrong code generated when compiling for arm cortex-a72
in AARCH32 with -mbig-endian
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99290
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|10.4
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99290
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43cbff3da5a856d1b18a9ad33b337ab829af73ed
commit r10-10833-g43cbff3da5a856d1b18a9ad33b337ab829af73ed
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105954
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=105980
Bug ID: 105980
Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn_1, at
final.cc:2811
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105979
Bug ID: 105979
Summary: ICE in change_stack, at reg-stack.cc:2660
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105978
Bug ID: 105978
Summary: ICE: nodes with unreleased memory found
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105977
Bug ID: 105977
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in
gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at gimple.cc:1636
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e16b4359e86b36676ed01219e6deafa95f3c16b
commit r13-1092-g3e16b4359e86b36676ed01219e6deafa95f3c16b
Author: Surya Kumari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97185
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
There's a heuristic for ranges of allocation sizes to exclude zero
(size_range_flags) that comes into play here. The actual range isn't
"impossible" in the sense it's necessarily invalid. It just means the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
Wolfgang Wander changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wwcsmail at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #26 from John Kanapes ---
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 06:37:17 PM GMT+3, redi at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44425
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #27)
> > Wouldn't this be -fno-strict-flex-arrays, i.e. the current behaviour?
>
> Yes, it’s the same. =0 is aliased with -fno-strict-flex-arrays.
That is indeed what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105976
Bug ID: 105976
Summary: -Wuse-after-free warning with
std::shared_ptr[]>::reset
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #27 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Jun 14, 2022, at 11:39 AM, siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
>
> --- Comment #26 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
> (In reply to qinzhao from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've just ported the two patches to gcc-10 and gcc-11 release branches.
gcc-10 required additional work besides just cherry-picking.
The patches were successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c6e66a4dba5bbbcf343c1f6a58f355e270e79b9
commit r10-10831-g4c6e66a4dba5bbbcf343c1f6a58f355e270e79b9
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:688703569091edfd0400523d85cbb44d15aa61ea
commit r10-10830-g688703569091edfd0400523d85cbb44d15aa61ea
Author: Vladimir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b518d844a49b2ee48d07e17cce855a4eec59490
commit r11-10065-g0b518d844a49b2ee48d07e17cce855a4eec59490
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:776283dd1946f1563a59d8f527697e0206f5390e
commit r11-10064-g776283dd1946f1563a59d8f527697e0206f5390e
Author: Vladimir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100980
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101618
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #26 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #25)
> So, based on all the discussion so far, how about the following:
>
> ** add the following gcc option:
>
> -fstrict-flex-arrays=[0|1|2|3]
>
> when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John Kanapes from comment #22)
> It took you 4 posts to explain me what to do.
> It took me 4 posts to understand what you were talking about.
> You should explain better.
You should read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #24 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59048
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105970
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> Probably something like:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> index 3d189e124e4..f158cc3aaea 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
--- Comment #25 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, based on all the discussion so far, how about the following:
** add the following gcc option:
-fstrict-flex-arrays=[0|1|2|3]
when -fstrict-flex-arrays=0:
treat all trailing arrays as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62187
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #23 from John Kanapes ---
Hi,
I have not been able to recreate the issue with simpler programs that use the
same resources. I will need to upload my sources. Is it OK to upload a tar.gz
archive with a test directory with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105975
Bug ID: 105975
Summary: OpenMP/nvptx offloading: 'internal compiler error: in
maybe_legitimize_operand, at optabs.cc:7785'
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
sion algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.0 20220614 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
This is caused by r12-5771.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105638
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|g++ 12.1.0 runs out of |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101618
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #22 from John Kanapes ---
OK. Removed -lubsan. Added -fsanitize=undefined to linking
Same result as all the other flags.
It took you 4 posts to explain me what to do.
It took me 4 posts to understand what you were talking about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What we said is to use -fsanitize=undefined when linking, not add -lubsan
manually. I don't know how I could have said that more clearly than comment 6.
This is not different to other flags, there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100980
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101487
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101487
Yang Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #20 from John Kanapes ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> Two of us have already explained that (comment 3 and comment 6, and now
> comment 17).
I couldn't understand what you were talking about. It is listed with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #19 from John Kanapes ---
Aaaah. So it's different than the other gcc flags...
I just linked libubsan...
No compilation errors. At runtime it SIGILLS at the same gdb point as before...
Same as the rest of the recommended flags.
BTW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks, I have verified that on the #c0 testcase on 10 branch it makes both
__builtin_unreachable calls go away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Two of us have already explained that (comment 3 and comment 6, and now comment
17).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you mean https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950#c2 , no, you
have just posted what is a user error in using the sanitizers and we've told
you how to fix that. The -fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f6c317b3a16350698f3c9e0accb43a9b4acb4ae
commit r13-1089-g8f6c317b3a16350698f3c9e0accb43a9b4acb4ae
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #16 from John Kanapes ---
Good to know (O3).
I have posted my -fsanitize=undefined.
Doesn't compile with it, but I need help to fix that,because I don't know what
it means:(
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 02:35:05 PM GMT+3, redi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105838
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 53133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53133=edit
unincluded, and reduced
This "reduced" testcase peaks at 3.8GB memory.
> /usr/bin/time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105970
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://godbolt.org/z/asecWe6KK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact we get it wrong even if both branches call the same noreturn function:
if (PREDICT(n > (__PTRDIFF_MAX__ / sizeof(T
{
if (n > (__SIZE_MAX__ / sizeof(T)))
throw1();
throw1();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105973
Bug ID: 105973
Summary: Wrong branch prediction for if (COND) { if(x)
noreturn1(); else noreturn2(); }
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Just running in GDB doesn't find bugs (and there is no -O6 level, -O3 is the
highest).
Did you try it with -fsanitize=undefined yet?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] x86:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105946
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e07a876c07601e1f3a27420f7d055d20193c362c
commit r13-1086-ge07a876c07601e1f3a27420f7d055d20193c362c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105965
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90467f0ad649d0817f9e034596a0fb85605b55af
commit r13-1085-g90467f0ad649d0817f9e034596a0fb85605b55af
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105972
Bug ID: 105972
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in lower_stmt, at
gimple-low.cc:312
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105971
Bug ID: 105971
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in bitmap_check_index, at
sbitmap.h:104
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105970
Bug ID: 105970
Summary: ICE in ix86_function_arg, at config/i386/i386.cc:3351
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105969
Bug ID: 105969
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in Floating point exception
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #14 from John Kanapes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to John Kanapes from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > > Note that GCC 9 is no longer supported. Note one common
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
