https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Bug ID: 90405
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in thumb_find_work_register, at
config/arm/arm.c:7701
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > So the problem is that without a profile tree-vectorizer does a
> > vectorization in 1162 functions, while with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
All are similar, the VN in if-conversion removes a PHI - this is something we
cannot really deal with when doing peeling. In all cases this is a missed
optimization on the non-if-converted body of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #12 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Btw. in our gcc 7.2 coverage (which works fine), I often see about 800 branches
at an "end module" statement...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90406
Bug ID: 90406
Summary: OpenMP default(none) + if(variable) - difference with
clang
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Thanks. The unreduced file does not reproduce for me. But anyway, we warn for
things like
int a[1];
void f(int n){
for(int i=0;i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90406
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90401
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Huh. IPA-CP dump difference:
>
> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
> Unknown VR
> callsite int caller(int, int&)/2 -> int callee(int&)/1 :
> param 0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #7 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Out of curiosity I tried to have a look at the debug output:
It seems to me that it gets stuck in the circuit detection of a source line
that just contains an "end module"-statement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Bug ID: 90404
Summary: No warning on attempts to modify a const
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46320
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46320=edit
Dot of basic blocks at p4est_triangulation.f90':688
Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source line contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90407
Bug ID: 90407
Summary: Compilation error of a C function generated from
Simulink
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90408
Bug ID: 90408
Summary: >= -O2 suddenly generates code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon ---
And some regressions in g++ too:
g++.dg/compat/eh/unexpected1 cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-eh2.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> FAIL: gcc.dg/store_merging_29.c scan-tree-dump store-merging
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
--- Comment #3 from David Brown ---
Yes, false positives are always a risk with warnings. We already have a
warning here that would catch pretty much any case, but with a big risk of
false positives - "-Wcast-qual". My hope is for a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #22 from Than McIntosh ---
Apologies for the delayed response (busy with other bugs yesterday).
Testcase: hard to share the original... it has hundreds if not
thousands of imported packages (it's an auto-generated Go file), and
I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
>
> I am not sure whether this is really a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #23 from Than McIntosh ---
Created attachment 46326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46326=edit
dump from -fdump-statistics-stats
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
Bug ID: 90411
Summary: Colored diagnostics can omit characters
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> > I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> > arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> > FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90410
Bug ID: 90410
Summary: [feature request] -fdiagnostics-show-template-tree
should expand mismatched reference parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625
--- Comment #8 from Shawn Landden ---
Included in gcc 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
I am not sure whether this is really a bug or only default behavior of gcov.
Since these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In this and many other testcases it wants to ask is STRICT_ALIGNMENT non-zero?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #24 from Than McIntosh ---
Did another run with the patch from comment 21. For the offending routine I
get:
phi-translate cache statistics: size 2097143, 1171808 elements, 0.465610
collisions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is something in libstdc++ miscompiled or something in the tests?
Like, can you try those tests against libstdc++ built with that change
reverted, but test with gcc with that revision in?
If it is in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46327=edit
gcc10-pr88709-test.patch
Untested patch for the testsuite (well, I've tested it on x86_64-linux,
together with some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #4 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > > Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90412
Bug ID: 90412
Summary: g++ suggest did you mean for namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #21 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Hi,
for me the patch seems to solve the problem only for some of the Fortran files.
I applied the patch in my GCC 9.1.0 build and I still have 4 files where gcov
does not seem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
--- Comment #9 from Nicholas Krause ---
(In reply to Nicholas Krause from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46334 [details]
> Proposed Proper Bug Fix
This is the proper bug fix after tracing it seems and looking at other callers
in that file. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #18)
> Created attachment 46330 [details]
> -fdump-tree-original?
>
> Martin,
>
> this is the first time I use this flag. Is the attached file the one you are
> asking for?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
Bug ID: 90418
Summary: [10 Regression] powerpc-darwin9 bootstrap fails after
r271013
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88152
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #20 from Victor ---
Hi Martin,
these are great news!
Indeed we are using 9.1.0 till today for the CI process, and since monday for
testing purposes before production.
The coverage issue is still present in GCC 9.1.0. The great
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
--- Comment #6 from Vladislav Ivanishin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Vlad, likely caused by your change - can you investigate please?
Sure, I'll investigate and report back next week (we're on national holidays
until
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #36
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Or maybe just
@@ -1879,6 +1888,9 @@ iterative_hash_template_arg (tree arg, hashval_t val)
return val;
}
+case TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM:
+ return val;
+
default:
break;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90419
Bug ID: 90419
Summary: RISCV --with-multilib-list support is somewhat
incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Most likely similar problem to the one analyzed in PR59813, after all, it is
the same function. Previously, in that function there were no tail calls and
most likely no tailcalls in any function with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90417
Bug ID: 90417
Summary: OpenACC 'loop' construct's implicit/explicit 'auto'
vs. 'independent' clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89875
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
If we compare the testcase to a modified version using __decltype, for the
latter by the time we reach the place in cp_parser_init_declarator which I
changed in r213952 we have already issued an "expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #22 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Created attachment 46333
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46333=edit
Fortran module -fdump-tree-original
Hi again,
I also generated the -fdump-tree-original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
--- Comment #8 from Nicholas Krause ---
Created attachment 46334
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46334=edit
Proposed Proper Bug Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90418
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-apple-darwin9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Martin -- r270660 is Vlad's change :-) I committed it for him.
Heh, got it ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
> >
> > Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #16 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> (In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The only difference the patch makes that matters for those tests is in
unwind-dw2.c, where in _Unwind_Resume_or_Rethrow function there is:
- _20 = _Unwind_RaiseException (exc_4(D));
+ _20 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu May 9 16:35:56 2019
New Revision: 271037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271037=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/90405 New test.
This time really add the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
> However, 64-bit testing on Solaris 10/x86 only works with gld since ld doesn't
> support -z relax=transtls. What's worse, due to some packagaing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90351
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 9 17:40:30 2019
New Revision: 271038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271038=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/90351
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 9 17:40:30 2019
New Revision: 271038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271038=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/90351
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46309|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu May 9 16:00:23 2019
New Revision: 271036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271036=gcc=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/90405 fix regression for thumb1 with -mtpcs-leaf-frame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #18 from Victor ---
Created attachment 46330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46330=edit
-fdump-tree-original?
Martin,
this is the first time I use this flag. Is the attached file the one you are
asking for?
If
&) = delete;
};
using Map = std::unordered_map;
void copy_func(Map) {}
void map_error(Map& m) {
copy_func(m);
}
The 9.1 error is as follows (note that the line copy_func(m) appears nowhere in
this trace, despite being the proximal cause of offense):
In file included from
/opt/compiler-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
And in the testcase that prompted Ramana's original patch it clearly wanted to
ask something else.
We can't have it both ways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 46329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46329=edit
Use __tls_get_addr indirectly on 64-bit Solaris/x86
This patch addresses the execution failures on 64-bit Solaris/x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90413
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
clang also doesn't do this well: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41819
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89249
--- Comment #6 from Liviu Ionescu ---
I upgraded my mingw to 5.0.4 and I can no longer reproduce the problem, so I
suggest we close this ticket for now and reopen if necessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, seems it is libgcc_s.so.1 rather than libstdc++. Bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Bug ID: 90416
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in dump_generic_node at
tree-pretty-print.c:1383 since r271006
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Same happens for e.g. Haswell:
$ ./xgcc -B. /tmp/ice.f90 -c -O3 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-vect-details
-march=haswell
during GIMPLE pass: vect
dump file: ice.f90.158t.vect
/tmp/ice.f90:9:0:
9 | subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46332=edit
gcc10-pr59813-aarch64.patch
Untested fix. The problem is that after adding sp addition back to the
caller's sp in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu May 9 18:13:28 2019
New Revision: 271039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271039=gcc=rev
Log:
sel-sched: allow negative insn priority (PR 88879)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #13 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46320 [details]
> Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
>
> Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source line contains enormous number
> of basic block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
>
> this is weird, line 688 is an "end module" statement.
I see. Can you please use -fdump-tree-original and attach the dump file it
generates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
Bug ID: 90414
Summary: [Feature] Implementing HWASAN (and eventually MTE)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Are you sure about the bisection btw? I've just reverted those changes,
rebuilt cc1plus and rebuilt libstdc++ with that, but get still the same
failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Bug ID: 90415
Summary: std::is_copy_constructible> is
incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #6 from Victor ---
Thanks for your quick responses Martin!
Please, let us know any advance on this.
Best regards,
Víctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 9 10:09:30 2019
New Revision: 271031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271031=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90395
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88963
Bug 88963 depends on bug 90395, which changed state.
Bug 90395 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: BB 2
cannot throw but has an EH edge)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #4)
> Hi
>
> I have a similar problem with GCC 9.1.0, GCC 7.2.0 works fine.
> (I also had problems with GCC 8.1.0 but I did not check that this is
> actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slandden at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
--- Comment #3 from Alex Smith ---
Still reproduces on 9.1.1-1.fc30.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Oh my, let's immediately remove that little tweak, I have no idea how it could
have caused a regression but isn't worth the trouble. Maybe another time...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 9 10:18:23 2019
New Revision: 271032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271032=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/90382
Revert:
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
