https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
--- Comment #1 from Jinyang He ---
Created attachment 53906
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53906=edit
a simple test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107668
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c6cd9c05efca29a1a9635b81c86cbad25bbdbbe
commit r13-4081-g7c6cd9c05efca29a1a9635b81c86cbad25bbdbbe
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
Bug ID: 107713
Summary: Wrong implementation atomic_exchange on
LoongArch
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107669
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90259
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63e1b2e767a3f4695373c2406ff719c0a60c1858
commit r13-4079-g63e1b2e767a3f4695373c2406ff719c0a60c1858
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107701
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107660
--- Comment #9 from Tomoya Suzuki ---
Thanks for clarifying the cause. I don't think you need to add the macro just
for me, gcc11 behavior is not critical for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107712
Bug ID: 107712
Summary: std::format does not work for clang
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107711
Bug ID: 107711
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107702
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
(Where "check for any high bits being set" needs appropriate adjustment in
the case of negative values for conversion from signed __int128, e.g. "the
high 64 bits aren't the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107702
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> _Float16 f9 (__int128 x) { return x; }
> _Float16 f10 (__int128 x) { return x; }
I suppose one of those is meant to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #7 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Looking -fdump-ipa-cp-all I see the following clone
```
IPA decision stage:
Evaluating opportunities for static void function_ref::callback_fn(void*) [with
Callable =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107492
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think clang warns there too, but we could.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107492
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107492
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed1797ddf8285f59a50d9c883beb97705279d980
commit r13-4077-ged1797ddf8285f59a50d9c883beb97705279d980
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107576
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Something like the following rejects NULL when there is no interface:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc
index 49dbd1d886c..62b325b726d 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107243
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Nothing has happened on this for over a month.
The bug still exists in current sources.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104066
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107710
Bug ID: 107710
Summary: error: ‘constinit’ on function return type is not
allowed
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107709
Bug ID: 107709
Summary: IVOPTs is introducing a non-zero assumption
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107638
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106072
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
At least when building the devel/rust/master branch as of 2022, the warning
doesn't occur any longer. I haven't investigated why, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107695
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107680
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=106765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107708
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Steefel ---
Ok. If passing arguments to a constructor function is explicitly undefined, and
gcc is willing to optimize based on that, should it be documented in the
constructor attribute docs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100532
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.3|---
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100525
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101057
Bug 101057 depends on bug 100525, which changed state.
Bug 100525 Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’
(error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101285
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101313
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106764
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107680
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> I thought the call to gfc_type_convert_binary in eval_intrinsic was taking
> care of mismatching types, doesn't it?
It does, and then it doesn't do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107660
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107708
Bug ID: 107708
Summary: LTO causes gnu::constructor functions to not be called
with correct arguments if there is more than one
constructor
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106003
Bug 106003 depends on bug 106140, which changed state.
Bug 106140 Summary: RFE: analyzer could complain about misuses of socket APIs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106140
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106140
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107472
Bug 107472 depends on bug 106302, which changed state.
Bug 106302 Summary: RFE: provide a way for -fanalyzer to use target flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106302
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106301
Bug 106301 depends on bug 106302, which changed state.
Bug 106302 Summary: RFE: provide a way for -fanalyzer to use target flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106302
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106003
Bug 106003 depends on bug 106302, which changed state.
Bug 106302 Summary: RFE: provide a way for -fanalyzer to use target flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106302
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106140
Bug 106140 depends on bug 106302, which changed state.
Bug 106302 Summary: RFE: provide a way for -fanalyzer to use target flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106302
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106302
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107472
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8aba860b34203621586df8c5a6756b18c2a0c32
commit r13-4073-gd8aba860b34203621586df8c5a6756b18c2a0c32
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106140
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86a90006864840c2e222d46ead551850caba184b
commit r13-4074-g86a90006864840c2e222d46ead551850caba184b
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106302
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8aba860b34203621586df8c5a6756b18c2a0c32
commit r13-4073-gd8aba860b34203621586df8c5a6756b18c2a0c32
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105914
Arthur Cohen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cohenarthur.dev at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707
Bug ID: 107707
Summary: ICE in gfc_compare_actual_formal, at
fortran/interface.cc:3284
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107706
Bug ID: 107706
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_procedure_call, at
fortran/trans-expr.cc:7572
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107705
Bug ID: 107705
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
ix86_function_type_abi, at config/i386/i386.cc:1529
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107660
--- Comment #7 from Tomoya Suzuki ---
The following code appears to me to work differently with gcc10 and gcc11.
#include
#include
#include
int kRandSeed = 27491095;
int
main()
{
const int n = 16384;
std::vector v(n);
std::mt19937
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107701
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107704
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107704
Bug ID: 107704
Summary: [13 Regression] Testsuite regression after recent DCE
changes
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107703
Bug ID: 107703
Summary: Some integral to __bf16 conversions and __bf16 to
integral conversions are implemented incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107668
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> While the patch passed bootstrap/regtest, I'm afraid it is not correct.
>
> What we have is lhs = op1 * 0.0; with range of lhs [-0.0, 0.0] and range of
> op2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107671
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> from:
> movl%esi, %ecx
> movl$1, %eax
> sall%cl, %eax
> testl %edi, %eax
> setne %al
> movzbl %al,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107702
Bug ID: 107702
Summary: {,unsigned} __int128 to _Float16 conversion shouldn't
use libgcc routines
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107701
Bug ID: 107701
Summary: [13 Regression] static linking broken when using
iostream
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107700
Bug ID: 107700
Summary: Several testsuite failures on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rust
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99625
--- Comment #5 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
No problem, thanks for working on GCC :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99625
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #3)
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to ping, but some time has gone by -- I guess this fell through the
> cracks?
Yes, it did. Sorry. :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107638
--- Comment #5 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
All my affected builds are restored.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107698
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99625
--- Comment #3 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hi,
Sorry to ping, but some time has gone by -- I guess this fell through the
cracks?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107693
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107693
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce86d9678b7f3d914133a035fbf8088504d8bad8
commit r13-4059-gce86d9678b7f3d914133a035fbf8088504d8bad8
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107665
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Strange.
When I try with a cross to powerpc64le-linux simplified:
namespace std
{
template struct integral_constant {
static constexpr T value = v;
};
typedef integral_constant false_type;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107697
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess this is GCC 14 material at this point.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107697
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
(data.begin(), data.begin() + getCount());
return data.front();
}
Built with -Wall -O3 triggers:
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20221115/include/c++/13.0.0/algorithm:61,
from :2:
In function 'void std::__final_insertion_sort(_RandomAccessIterator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107698
Bug ID: 107698
Summary: ASAN misses a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107629
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 53903
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53903=edit
Initial patch
This patch allowed me to finish the libgm2 build on macOS. As usuual, it
contains
only the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
--- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks for the prompt reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107612
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 53902
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53902=edit
Initial patch
The attached patch allowed the plugin to build on macOS.
I'm not really happy about it for a couple of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107697
Bug ID: 107697
Summary: -Wredundant-move misses std::move applied to const
objects (instead of const references)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
So here again depends on the order of stack variables and a[4] is a valid
access to 'b' variable, see what happens with a[6]:
=
==6539==ERROR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > int i;
> > int a[1];
> > for (; i < 1;){
>
> This depends on the uninitialized value of 'i', which is:
>
> (gdb) p i
> $1 = 32767
>
> if I run it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107671
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 53901
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53901=edit
Patch that adds relevant zero_extract patterns
This patch adds relevant zero_extract patterns that optimize:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107677
--- Comment #5 from Carlos Galvez ---
Wow, that was mind blowing, thanks for the clarification! Such thing I'd like
to have in the docs, it's very easy to confuse with the other message:
note: at offset 48 into object '' of size 48
So one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98822
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||cwg2596
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107677
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note range syntax of [a, b] is math syntax not to be confused with array
deference syntax of c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107677
--- Comment #3 from Carlos Galvez ---
The warning message is also hard to decipher. For example, what does this mean?
error: array subscript [-536870912, -1] is outside array bounds
What is a 2-dimensional subscript applied on a 1D array?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
Bug ID: 107696
Summary: GCC trunk misses a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi!
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #2)
> I've tested the patch with cross-compler and all the fails disappeared, but
> I don't have a powerpc to do full bootstrap & regtest (I'm still applying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107693
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=107695
Bug ID: 107695
Summary: Non conforming shape during assignment is not detected
at run-time
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107680
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107326
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107694
Bug ID: 107694
Summary: Bogus stringop-overflow warning in gcc 12
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
