https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #5)
> I tested it with an rv64gc-linux cross compiler. The patch fixes these
Thanks.
> I think it should be backported to the gcc-10 release branch.
Sure, but at this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
I tested it with an rv64gc-linux cross compiler. The patch fixes these
failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr94780.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr94780.c (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0af711e1914ab6d88538f1fcf0146757b5608b1d
commit r11-154-g0af711e1914ab6d88538f1fcf0146757b5608b1d
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94907
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25ee2155ead87a5ea1c152a29341ee1e3275d706
commit r11-152-g25ee2155ead87a5ea1c152a29341ee1e3275d706
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94630
--- Comment #8 from Paul E. Murphy ---
The new libm/libc ABI for ieee128 long double on ppc64le is now committed to
glibc which will be available for the 2.32 release (commit
051be01f6b41a1466b07ae4bd7f5894a8ec5fe67).
TS-18661 does not specify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #41 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #39)
> You can easily find which pass does something by dumping (-ftree-dump-*)
> all of them and comparing them.
It's -ftree-dump-all, and also -fdump-passes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94977
Bug ID: 94977
Summary: Some X86 inline assembly modifiers are not documented
in the web documentation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46fcef99f49cc2d9f28d98f8ecdbf8263e9e0a87
commit r11-153-g46fcef99f49cc2d9f28d98f8ecdbf8263e9e0a87
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94938
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e89178889741c9c4d6a61e5a01c40a8a182fa68
commit r11-155-g1e89178889741c9c4d6a61e5a01c40a8a182fa68
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94978
Bug ID: 94978
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] Bogus warning "Array reference
at (1) out of bounds in loop beginning at (2)"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94978
--- Comment #1 from Fritz Reese ---
The regression is caused by r253156, which introduces the warning in the first
place. The relevant code is in frontend-passes.c (do_subscript). Apparently,
the FE is aware that when there is a conditional it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94979
Bug ID: 94979
Summary: gcc-9 generates incorrect code causing segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||makhaloff at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94938
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] internal |[10 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #7 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> > https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMYdsL7AXf2vXYm82g
> >
> > I uploaded the file,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
@@ -9319,7 +9364,8 @@ vectorizable_load (stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
gimple_stmt_it
erator *gsi,
initialized yet, use first_stmt_info_for_drptr DR by bumping the
distance from first_stmt_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some of it changed recently, e.g. when the FEs use ARRAY_RANGE_REFs in the
initializer the gimplifier's gimplify_init_ctor_eval emits a loop.
But in this case I think we need the FE to emit the loop itself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48459=edit
patch in testing
Testing the attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89394
Trupti Pardeshi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trupti_pardeshi@persistent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Bug ID: 94966
Summary: [10 regression] internal compiler error: tree check:
expected function_type or method_type, have
integer_type in gimplify_call_expr, at gimplify.c:3433
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Plenty of dups for this in bugzilla - but FE folks never get that idea of using
a loop ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #8 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #3)
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f14848aea70066777faf201c0b6eb3c5520bfab9
commit r11-127-gf14848aea70066777faf201c0b6eb3c5520bfab9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4ace720e004f736f1ee46b374c12f9826aad630
commit r11-128-gb4ace720e004f736f1ee46b374c12f9826aad630
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Bug ID: 94964
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in add_phi_arg, at
tree-phinodes.c:359 since r8-2993-ga7976089dba5e227
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94442
--- Comment #4 from xiezhiheng at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So I wonder why
>
> a$vect_s8$0_4 = MEM[(const struct __m256i &)output_5(D) + 32].vect_s8[0];
>
> necessarily emits two RTL insns. It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #38 from Niels Möller ---
Just a brief update.
1. Tried adding fprintf warnings to c_gimplify_expr (btw, what's the right way
to display a pretty warning with line numbers etc in later passes?). But it
seems that's too early, I still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-06
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Bug ID: 94965
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE during SLP since
r11-59-g308bc496884706af4b3077171cbac684c7a6f7c6
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
--- Comment #3 from Andrea Mastellone ---
Created attachment 48460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48460=edit
simple test case which reproduces the bug
Here is a simple source code replying the bug. I have attached the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #22 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #21)
> However, -O2 would still show the warning.
I meant -O0 of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Bug ID: 94968
Summary: [10 Regression] internal compiler error: 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=94965
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:380a681518c3b387476be1064097f24b0847726d
commit r11-131-g380a681518c3b387476be1064097f24b0847726d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Erich Keane from comment #3)
> As you know, "extern template" is a hint to the compiler that we don't need
> to emit the template as a way to save on compile time.
>
> Both GCC and clang will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel ---
The problem arises from dr_analyze_innermost not being able to analyze the
bitfield access. However, the returned error is ignored in
find_data_references_in_stmt and execution continues with bogus values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
>
> I will try to see if assigning more CPU cores to VirtualBox image I am using
> locally can improve the situation. I am not sure how CPU cache is handled in
> such a setting, but there may be some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94730
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 94966 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
--- Comment #11 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 48463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48463=edit
argument discards qualifiers
Another example "argument discards qualifiers"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94967
Bug ID: 94967
Summary: std::get<0>(tuple const &&) returns wrong type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94946
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks.
I've made a more permanent link here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s9i_l68CR8UGhqPfq0pdgQTH26G7YEFW/view?usp=sharing
I get these numbers for g++ UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp -c -std=c++17 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Bug ID: 94969
Summary: Invalid loop distribution
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
You are right, the documentation is not complete.
Btw. are you parsing a .gcda or .gcna format for some reason?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781
--- Comment #10 from ishikawa,chiaki ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Thanks.
> I've made a more permanent link here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s9i_l68CR8UGhqPfq0pdgQTH26G7YEFW/
> view?usp=sharing
>
> I get these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 48462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48462=edit
Experimental patch
With this patch the returned error is propagated. Unfortunately this prevents
some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94967
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7b76d574b19190da190a60c065f347f40bab59e
commit r11-132-ga7b76d574b19190da190a60c065f347f40bab59e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94966
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
Keywords|
6 | vec.push_back("");
| ^
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20200506/include/c++/11.0.0/vector:67,
from :2:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20200506/include/c++/11.0.0/bits/stl_vector.h:1203:7:
note: in call to 'void std::vector<_Tp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
Bug ID: 94970
Summary: d: internal compiler error: in verify_gimple_stmt, at
tree-cfg.c:4959
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So I think the issue is not dependence testing but loop distribution accepting
a
zero dependence distance as OK. Of course dependence analysis is quite useless
here since the accesses are to the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Before Richards change we likely gave up on the mismatch in access function
dimensionality for f[b] vs. f[b].e but now we compute a dependence distance
of zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Message:
>
> trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/parallel/multiway_merge.h:121:40: style:
> Parameter '__bi2' can be declared with const [constParameter]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94971
Bug ID: 94971
Summary: [10/11 Regression] Parallel Mode cannot be used in
C++20
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94971
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:371905d12259c180efb9b1f1b5716e969feb60f9
commit r11-138-g371905d12259c180efb9b1f1b5716e969feb60f9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94968
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48464
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48464=edit
gcc11-pr94968.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> This is 400% wrong. It doesn't even address what cppcheck is complaining
> about, and cppcheck is drunk anyway.
Thanks for your explanation.
I am a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89394
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Trupti Pardeshi from comment #9)
> May I know, in which version of binutils this fix is available?
2.35. Which should be available in August, all being well.
Cheers
Nick
PS. The fix is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
The statement it is balking on is GIMPLE_WITH_CLEANUP_EXPR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6fc00b41e764219e2c88d8892d7c701c0d292a17
commit r11-139-g6fc00b41e764219e2c88d8892d7c701c0d292a17
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #6 from Erich Keane ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Erich Keane from comment #3)
> > As you know, "extern template" is a hint to the compiler that we don't need
> > to emit the template as a way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48467=edit
gcc11-pr94913.patch
Untested fix for that part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94972
Bug ID: 94972
Summary: Function multi-versioning binary may crash dynamic
linker
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #4)
> A python tool that can do distributed code coverage analysis. Gcda files
> from cluster nodes from a web interface, gcno from a web interface or file
> share in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Myron Walker from comment #9)
> How you I process data files from multiple sources and multiple runs with
> gcov.
$ man gcov-tool
$ gcov-tool merge [merge-options] directory1 directory2
So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48465=edit
Partially reduced test-case
Cannot reduce much..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 regression] ICE |[8/9/10 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94953
--- Comment #2 from Olaf Krzikalla ---
Created attachment 48469
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48469=edit
Test case code triggering the warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|10.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Because RegexMatch needs destruction, a temporary is created that requires
scope destruction. The temporary is wrapped in a TARGET_EXPR, and dtor call
set in TARGET_EXPR_CLEANUP.
TARGET_EXPR
A clean-up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94928
--- Comment #2 from Myron Walker ---
I am parsinv both gcno and gcda files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94970
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> Somewhat simplified reduction of test that doesn't depend on operator
> overloading.
>
> struct RegexMatch
> {
> string index() { return null; }
> ~this() {
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
