https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95521
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >libgccjit.so: error: in build2, at tree.c:4743
>
> This means the PLUS_EXPR is being used when adding a pointer and an integer
> together. It needs to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95534
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
Bug ID: 95537
Summary: [11 regression] gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 since r11-670
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95535
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48676=edit
gcc11-pr95535.patch
Untested version of the PR91824 popcnt fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95523
--- Comment #2 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #1)
> The reason for the assert is that the alignment is part of the
> ABI of the types and is relied on when using LDR and STR for
> some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95113
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1980ffec48c6fa41396bea66366f2e591798e1e1
commit r11-935-g1980ffec48c6fa41396bea66366f2e591798e1e1
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95532
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94801
--- Comment #6 from Gabriel Ravier ---
*** Bug 95532 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Are you able to produce a traceback?
valgrind unfortunately does not provide any hints.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3a71447513cd6aee06631e1cc73a530e2c7fd95
commit r10-8228-ga3a71447513cd6aee06631e1cc73a530e2c7fd95
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
Or even move the flags to API calls:
extern gcc_jit_extended_asm *
gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
const char *asm_template);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Ok, bootstrap and test looks good. Cleaned up a bunch of recent testsuite
failures:
+PASS: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-3 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
+PASS: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
--- Comment #10 from Joakim Tjernlund ---
To be clear, this is still a bug for powerpc(SPE or no SPE) and possibly any
other arch using fixup tables like ppc.
One can workaround this bug by using the -fno-ira-hoist-pressure, I am not
sure why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95538
Bug ID: 95538
Summary: Unfinished cleanup in the test suite
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95539
Bug ID: 95539
Summary: Vectorizer ICE in dr_misalignment, at
tree-vectorizer.h:1433
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #38 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #37)
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
> >
...
> > Unaligned reading is supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5261cf8ce824bfc75eb6f12ad5e3716c085b6f9a
commit r11-937-g5261cf8ce824bfc75eb6f12ad5e3716c085b6f9a
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95521
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #0)
> The reproducer is very big, so tell me if you want me to try to make it
> smaller.
Yes please!
The attachment reproduces the ICE for me, but is too big for me to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
An alternative approach that reduces the number of params by splitting it into
successive calls:
extern gcc_jit_extended_asm *
gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94735
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by SRINATH PARVATHANENI
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a810e57c4e6af54d29c325a013f451ade2b85e8
commit r11-934-g9a810e57c4e6af54d29c325a013f451ade2b85e8
Author: Srinath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68837
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
The PR was from 2015, before Martin's improvements.
Also, sign-extend load instructions were less efficient at the time. We need
to re-examine the sequence on more recent microarchitectures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Introduced by[1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=bea408857a7d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92103, which changed state.
Bug 92103 Summary: constraints not checked on nested class template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92103
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95535
Bug ID: 95535
Summary: Failure to optimize out cdqe after __bultin_ctz
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95521
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95540
--- Comment #1 from Michael Bruck ---
"impossible" is too strong here, you can add another overload:
template struct std::coroutine_traits
{ using promise_type = pt; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #15 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #14)
> Or even move the flags to API calls:
>
> extern gcc_jit_extended_asm *
> gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #33 from Andrew Downing ---
Those are all perfectly good arguments, but the problem ended up not having
anything to do with std::launder or new implicit object creation rules or
anything else introduced in the most recent standards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95521
--- Comment #4 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Created attachment 48674
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48674=edit
Smaller bug reproducer
Here's a smaller bug reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 4, 2020 4:42:53 PM GMT+02:00, "acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
>
>--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
>Ok, bootstrap and test looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95526
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab56390384cd5168b548ff07e6f0c9c4d41420fb
commit r11-936-gab56390384cd5168b548ff07e6f0c9c4d41420fb
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
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=95464
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7ef9a40cd0c688cd331bc26224d1fbe360c1fe6
commit r11-951-ge7ef9a40cd0c688cd331bc26224d1fbe360c1fe6
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95523
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95543
Bug ID: 95543
Summary: ICE in is_CFI_desc, at fortran/expr.c:1080
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
My bisect ended up at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=78307657cf9675bc4aa2e77561c823834714b4c8
$ git bisect bad
78307657cf9675bc4aa2e77561c823834714b4c8 is the first bad commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95518
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #7 from Bill Seurer ---
I used the wrong patch file, sorry.
This patch did not apply cleanly to current trunk.
patching file gcc/fortran/decl.c
Hunk #2 FAILED at 4285.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
#include
#include
using namespace std;
int main(void)
{
int maxThreads = thread::hardware_concurrency();
printf("maxThreads: %d\n", maxThreads);
return(0);
}
$ g++ -pthread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Various things can change the comparison mode. simplify_compare_const
is the most prominent example (hrm, maybe the only one now?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95346
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f2d05ef0142d269964e165c14c6f7fe4bdfd5a3
commit r11-952-g4f2d05ef0142d269964e165c14c6f7fe4bdfd5a3
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer ---
The above is all the traceback a normal compiler build provided. I will try
building a debug version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95516
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] Templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is the question? 4+4 = 16? Not all costs are included in
that "4+4" :-) It does look weird; patches welcome.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
(also uploaded to
https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2020-06-04/0001-FIXME-WIP-on-extended-asm-support.patch
)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95516
--- Comment #2 from Michael Bruck ---
I was using -Ofast -Wall:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/pAkVS8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #8 from Bill Seurer ---
Oops, no, they are different. But this one works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95509
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tromey at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Updated patch to deal with comments #1.
Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c (revision 280157)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95542
Bug ID: 95542
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:1649
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95503
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
-o pr95090.s -fintrinsic-modules-path finclude
GNU Fortran (GCC) version 11.0.0 20200604 (experimental) [remotes/origin/HEAD
revision 0ddb93ce7:d48b471b9:7ece3bd8088983289731450826c238eb2bdd2db5]
(powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 7.4.0, GMP version 6.1.0, MPFR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68837
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
On Power9 the lwa insn is cracked into an lwz and an extsw, just like
on older CPUs. Cracked instructions have fewer constraints on p9 than
they did on most older CPUs though (it doesn't have to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #4 from Bill Seurer ---
Note that I did this run on a power 9 LE system.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b45b400c51be06f2d0e37a7b461cbd4ce9fe37d
commit r10-8243-g6b45b400c51be06f2d0e37a7b461cbd4ce9fe37d
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95505
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do you have a reproducer you can share?
I'll happily reopen the PR then, of course!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> What is the question? 4+4 = 16?
Ah, indeed - the question is why combine changes CCCmode compare to CCZmode
compare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 48677
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48677=edit
Work-in-progress patch
I had a go at implementing this; attached is a work-in-progress prototype.
It works for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #42 from Niels Möller ---
Created attachment 48678
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48678=edit
Add a new pass for emitting the warning (not working)
Since adding a new pass seems to be the right way, I've given
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #7 from Bill Seurer ---
The fortran.h patch (which looks to be the same one you asked about in pr95537)
works here:
make -k check-gcc-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=gfortran.dg/equiv_11.f90
# of expected passes3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Rs-using
in the C++ Core Guidelines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95542
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95500
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c727bdf4acf28c8315b119a1c8f6d6af745c2af
commit r11-953-g8c727bdf4acf28c8315b119a1c8f6d6af745c2af
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
--- Comment #5 from Bill Seurer ---
Still fails:
make -k check-gcc-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr95090.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95537
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 48679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48679=edit
Joint patch to fix the fallout reported in pr95530 and pr95537
Here's a clean patch that should fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
Bug ID: 95545
Summary: thread:: conflicts with std::thread
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95531
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There is also SELECT_CC_MODE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c59837c89bd62e2addf4b34704a1ebe7e3bffab
commit r10-8236-g0c59837c89bd62e2addf4b34704a1ebe7e3bffab
Author: Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:364f46de9f02dc00e8ff51cc9e2662ae37520389
commit r10-8235-g364f46de9f02dc00e8ff51cc9e2662ae37520389
Author: Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93310
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ece3bd8088983289731450826c238eb2bdd2db5
commit r11-955-g7ece3bd8088983289731450826c238eb2bdd2db5
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ddb93ce77374004c49cdfbd748ba35867620cf1
commit r11-954-g0ddb93ce77374004c49cdfbd748ba35867620cf1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95158
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e244b0acf3111c95bb1559e7610f84740b90589f
commit r10-8242-ge244b0acf3111c95bb1559e7610f84740b90589f
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95510
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95520
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95530
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95545
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #0)
> which creates an ambiguity when a user references thread:: without
> std::thread.
Could you show an example of code that's ambiguous?
> Would libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95541
Bug ID: 95541
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_dataptr_offset, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6909
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95541
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95544
Bug ID: 95544
Summary: ICE in gfc_can_put_var_on_stack, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:494
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95517
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
