https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90801
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 13 08:41:13 2019
New Revision: 272235
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272235=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Richard Biener
PR c++/90801
* typeck2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
--- Comment #1 from Sven Schmidt ---
Created attachment 46486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46486=edit
Assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90868
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90868
Bug ID: 90868
Summary: Duplicate OpenACC 'declare' directives for `extern`
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> So my patch survives bootstrap and regression tests, can you please Martin
> take the issue?
>
> Patch candidate:
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46487=edit
gcc10-pr90856.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
>
> Bill Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90869
Bug ID: 90869
Summary: Non-disambiguated memory accesses
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90869
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Another testcase. Here we should disambiguate both cases while we do only
second
struct a {int a1; int a2;};
struct b:a {};
struct b bvar,*bptr2;
int
test(void)
{
struct a *bptr =
bptr->a2=0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is a way out of this. Defer building those conditionals till the sanopt
pass, before that have new IFN_UBSAN_* internal calls in the IL like we already
do with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I'm testing a patch candidate..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #2 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for such a quick reply. I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding
you correctly about what you mean when you say this is expected.
Are you indicating that it's desirable that the ubsan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79775
--- Comment #3 from felix ---
A particularly amusing variant of this bug occurs with the following code:
struct x { struct x **xx; };
int y = __builtin_offsetof(struct x, xx->xx);
which gives the warning
$ gcc xx.c
xx.c:3:40:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #5)
> $ cat x.i
> typedef enum { a } b;
> typedef struct {
> int c[0];
> } d;
> typedef struct {
> int *data;
> } e;
> typedef struct {
> e buffer;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to sshannin from comment #2)
> Thanks for such a quick reply. I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding
> you correctly about what you mean when you say this is expected.
>
> Are you indicating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> No, it's not desirable, but the current gcov can't distinguish between read
> code and the instrumented one.
>
* real code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
Bug ID: 90867
Summary: Multiplication or typecast of integer and double
always zero when...
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
$ cat x.i
typedef enum { a } b;
typedef struct {
int c[0];
} d;
typedef struct {
int *data;
} e;
typedef struct {
e buffer;
} f;
int g, h;
int i();
int i(f *j, d *k, b l, int m) {
if (l)
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
Bug ID: 90870
Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/deferred_character_33.f90
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90869
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jun 13 15:00:41 2019
New Revision: 272247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272247=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimize/90869
* tree-ssa-alias.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's another one since my reducer finished :)
struct {
int a[0];
} b;
int c;
int d[0];
void e() {
b.a[c] = d[c + 1];
b.a[c + 1] = d[c];
}
-O3 needed on an aarch64 target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 13 13:03:13 2019
New Revision: 272244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272244=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90856
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90812
--- Comment #3 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I think most tests like this end up using 'long long' and use
> __SIZEOF_LONG_LONG__ to guard code. There's a dejagnu effective target for
> long long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90822
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Michael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #20 from Christophe Lyon ---
Hi Kugan,
The new test fails with -mabi=ilp32:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr88834.c scan-assembler-times \\tld2w\\t{z[0-9]+.s -
z[0-9]+.s}, p[0-7]/z, \\[x[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, lsl 2\\]\\n 2
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Does adding initializers to those vars fix the bootstrap? Or does it run into
wrong code?
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90874
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89647
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90877
Bug ID: 90877
Summary: Dead codes in ix86_register_move_cost
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90626
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90805
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90875
Bug ID: 90875
Summary: warnings about switch values outside range don't have
associated option
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
Jason Duerstock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason.duerstock at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90876
Bug ID: 90876
Summary: fold zero-equality of memcmp and strncmp involving
strings of unequal lengths
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So, removing the test case.
The same should be done for the GGC8 and 9 branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 88810, which changed state.
Bug 88810 Summary: gcc/fortran/dependency.c:2200: possible cut'n'paste error ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77820
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:55:55 2019
New Revision: 272261
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272261=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/77820
* tree-ssa-threadedge.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > So, removing the test case.
>
> The same should be done for the GGC8 and 9 branches.
May be not. My versions are probably not up to date.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:40:19 2019
New Revision: 272259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272259=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68544
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jun 13 17:00:22 2019
New Revision: 272249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272249=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90870
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88324
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90874
Bug ID: 90874
Summary: trunk/gcc/ipa-utils.h:243: possible cut-n-paste error
?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90872
Bug ID: 90872
Summary: [8 regression] ICE on invalid in
contains_struct_check()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90779
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
My code now compiles successfully, with the patch, but it hangs at runtime.
I need to investigate, but debugging runtime issues on the GPU is slow work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89292
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:53:05 2019
New Revision: 272260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272260=gcc=rev
Log:
Darwin, Driver - Improve processing of macosx-version-min=
For PR target/63810 some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77820
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Bug ID: 90871
Summary: [10 regression] g++.dg/ext/altivec-15.C fails after
r272236
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 13 17:10:03 2019
New Revision: 272250
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272250=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Paolo Carlini
PR target/90871
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 13 17:45:52 2019
New Revision: 272254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272254=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88810
*
, sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Between 20190612 (r272223) and 20190613 (r272247), 32-bit bootstrap got broken
on Solaris/x86 and Solaris/SPARC:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c: In function 'bool
simplify_rotate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:07:53 2019
New Revision: 272255
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272255=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/89344
* expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk. Thanks for the bug report.
Leavin PR open as I haven't decided if I will
back port the patch to other branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90875
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Why is this PR marked as a regression?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
Bug ID: 90880
Summary: compile error instead of SFINAE with non-public member
variables
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84577
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90882
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Since it is undefined behavior both GCC and clang are correct.
-fsanitizer=undefined can be detect it at runtime. This code is undefined in
two different ways really. you also violate C aliasing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-06/msg00077.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Why is this PR marked as a regression?
GCC 7 doesn't use memory:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 sse-move]$ cat x.s
.file "x.i"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
Bug ID: 90878
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] integer -> SSE register move isn't
generated
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90879
Bug ID: 90879
Summary: fold zero-equality of strcmp between a longer string
and a smaller array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
rcx
movq%rdx, (%rsi,%rdi,8)
cmpq%rcx, %r8
jle .L10
movq%rdx, (%rsi,%rcx,8)
ret
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L9:
vzeroupper
.L10:
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size foo, .-foo
.ident "GCC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90881
Bug ID: 90881
Summary: -Wunused-value false positive with
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90881
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
--- Comment #3 from Federico Kircheis ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #1)
> > After researching a little bit more, I've convinced myself that
> > `status::value` should be false, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90662
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jun 14 02:07:02 2019
New Revision: 272281
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272281=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90662 - strlen of a string in a vla plus offset not folded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jun 13 21:56:37 2019
New Revision: 272273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272273=gcc=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/90873
* tree-ssa-alias.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
No idea. I ran all-languages builds for all glibc ABIs as a one-off when
adding the --full-gcc option to build-many-glibcs.py, and reported the GCC
bugs that showed up. The idea was that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
--- Comment #1 from Federico Kircheis ---
After researching a little bit more, I've convinced myself that
`status::value` should be false, as `decltype` has no special rules for
accessing private data, thus clang is correct.
If someone could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90881
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
--- Comment #4 from Jason Duerstock ---
As of r272229 I can't replicate this:
$ ~/glibc/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py bmg --full-gcc compilers ia64-linux-gnu
PASS: compilers-ia64-linux-gnu check-host-libraries
...
PASS: compilers-ia64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90401
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89713
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Bug ID: 90866
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at
fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
