https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99909
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bogus maybe-uninitialized |[9/10/11 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89723
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-03-15 00:00:00 |2021-4-6
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 90058, which changed state.
Bug 90058 Summary: False Positive in undefined-sanitizer only with GCC8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058
What|Removed |Added
-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210406
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99943
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06
Summary|wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> But what is wrong is that try_combine has been called at all, because
> (reg:CCZ 17 flags) is used in 3 instructions rather than just one.
That is not a
f[g++] = a;
(void) (f[0] || (g && h()));
}
With a GCC snapshot built a few hour ago from the master branch:
cventin% gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 11.0.1 20210406 (experimental)
[...]
cventin% gcc -Werror=maybe-uninitialized -O2 -c file.c
file.c: In function ‘e1’:
file.c:11:3: error: ‘f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||83382
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96673
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88518
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60488
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew at wil dot cx
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 88518, which changed state.
Bug 88518 Summary: Function call defeats -Wuninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88518
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> So something earlier is bad already.
Yes, see #c7 and #c8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96673
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96673
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de03b82f3ca9103eba3699d1dc91b1d0ee1f16cb
commit r11-8018-gde03b82f3ca9103eba3699d1dc91b1d0ee1f16cb
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
i;
auto void cf (int *t) { foo2 (i); }
int t __attribute__ ((cleanup (cf)));
t = 0;
if (foo1 ())
i = foo1 ();
i = N foo1 () || i;
foo2 (i);
return 0;
}
With a GCC snapshot built a few hours ago from the master branch on x86_64:
cventin% gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 11.0.1 20210406
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89697
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #16 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Well, concerning the initial testcase (and its cleaned-up version), the issue
is either fixed or hidden by another bug, which I've just reported: PR99944.
Indeed, I now get a maybe-uninitialized warning,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97900
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffc2331d7994d7fabb1f6ebed931024a9bbe69f2
commit r11-8000-gffc2331d7994d7fabb1f6ebed931024a9bbe69f2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99881
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> But 2 element construction _should_ be cheap. What is missing is the move
> cost from GPR to XMM regs (but we do not have a good idea whether the sources
> are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any *.opt changes can break the streaming of optimization or target option
nodes.
And from experience with gcc plugins we have such changes ~ each month even on
release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930
Bug ID: 99930
Summary: Failure to optimize floating point -abs(x) in
nontrivial code at -O2/3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99925
Bug ID: 99925
Summary: Missing 'inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’' error when
using type-constraint placeholder
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code with |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202
--- Comment #5 from Jens Maurer ---
Core issue 1299 resolved via http://wg21.link/p0727 does in fact
lifetime-extend the temporary in the example.
This bug report should therefore be closed without action.
(If a test case is missing that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
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=99920
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Could you please attach preprocessed source so that I can try to look at it
quickly with a cross-compiler? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99911
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99748
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16ea7f57891d3fe885ee55b2917208695e184714
commit r11-7999-g16ea7f57891d3fe885ee55b2917208695e184714
Author: Alex Coplan
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99926
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hurd ---
Just a correction to the commentary. The variadic after the pack is not
unreachable as Richard Smith points out the following code can make the
variadic argument reachable if you wrote such evil and it had a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99928
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, that is new in OpenMP 5.0, 4.5 didn't have it.
Usually we do this in the gimplifier (gimplify_scan_omp_clauses), we also know
there whether it is a combined construct or not.
Look for the various spots
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Probably present since -mgeneral-regs-only introduction.
>
> Confirmed that, it's since r7-928-gce3a16ff1f59e6db.
Thank you for the bisection.
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
Bug ID: 99927
Summary: [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since
r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99924
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Confirmed. I will have a look.
It's interesting since the cost model needs to be disabled to reproduce it.
It looks like when it is one of the load nodes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99929
Bug ID: 99929
Summary: SVE: Wrong code at -O2 -ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
I'm testing
@@ -17759,6 +17759,35 @@ (define_insn "_pblendvb"
(set_attr "btver2_decode" "vector,vector,vector")
(set_attr "mode" "")])
+(define_split
+ [(set (match_operand:VI1_AVX2 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I only reacall backporting the streaming fixes early in gcc10 timeframe
> (August) that was reason for the September bump.
> Didn't we backport some new command line options/params breaking
> streaming of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99924
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99932
Bug ID: 99932
Summary: OpenACC/nvptx offloading execution regressions
starting with CUDA 11.2-era Nvidia Driver 460.27.04
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96573
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bfeb36bd03c2168af263daa13370a20a96c42b5d
commit r11-8002-gbfeb36bd03c2168af263daa13370a20a96c42b5d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The LTO minor saw a bump around Sep 10 last year already so the object files
> must be younger or LTO should complain.
>
> I'm not aware of any specific change where we forgot the bumping but there
> were
> Any *.opt changes can break the streaming of optimization or target option
> nodes.
> And from experience with gcc plugins we have such changes ~ each month even on
> release branches.
It may make sense to add a simple test to our regular testers that
either the new revision can consume old
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Any *.opt changes can break the streaming of optimization or target option
> nodes.
> And from experience with gcc plugins we have such changes ~ each month even on
> release branches.
It may make sense to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99924
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58cd9fc8a61de09ba181c5ed5ac7fb91ec506414
commit r11-8001-g58cd9fc8a61de09ba181c5ed5ac7fb91ec506414
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99931
Bug ID: 99931
Summary: Unnamed `struct` defined with `using` having internal
linkage instead of external, unlike `typedef`,
yielding different semantics for two
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99929
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Slightly cleaner testcase:
#include
static void e(short *g, short p2) { *g ^= p2; }
static short m[23];
int main() {
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 23; ++i)
m[i] = 4;
if (svaddv(svptrue_pat_b32(SV_VL1),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99880
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So we're having a PHI latch value vectorized because it's used by the outer
loop (vect_used_in_outer_by_reduction), but the vect_nested_cycle def PHI
in the inner loop isn't relevant since it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99933
Bug ID: 99933
Summary: gcc/brig/brigfrontend/brig-function.cc: 4 * possible
performance problem ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99946
Bug ID: 99946
Summary: fail to exchange if conditions in terms of
likely/unlikely probability
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7698c0e1ecad65b1ab651acc82b34e12c7efd35
commit r11-8022-ga7698c0e1ecad65b1ab651acc82b34e12c7efd35
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99900
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I've no idea whether the (not merged) ia16 port can do this, or whether
the person currently maintaining a version of that port for GCC 6 is
covered by an FSF copyright assignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83382
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
Shall this be backported to 10/11 later? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99941
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> i386-options.c has
>
> #define m_ALDERLAKE (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U< #define m_CORE_AVX512 (m_SKYLAKE_AVX512 | m_CANNONLAKE \
>| m_ICELAKE_CLIENT |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90710
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-02 00:00:00 |2021-4-6
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90710
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's a smaller test case showing both the problem (first gcc invocation) and
how it can be avoided (second invocation):
$ (set -x && cat pr90710.c && gcc -Og -S -Wall pr90710.c && gcc -Dint=long -Og
-S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Unless you consider that bug 83382 is actually 2 bugs, this is not a dup. Bug
83382 is about a false positive -Werror=uninitialized error. Do you mean that
it also has a missing -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99946
--- Comment #1 from Jiangning Liu ---
Is there any gcc pass that can deal with this simple optimization?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bin Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0bdccac582c01c928a05f26edcd8f5ac24669eb
commit r11-8023-ge0bdccac582c01c928a05f26edcd8f5ac24669eb
Author: Bin Cheng
Date: Wed Apr 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Note that with gcc-10 (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, I get the same
behavior.
But with gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0, the warning is missing in the 4 cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 50517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50517=edit
tested patch waiting for GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947
Bug ID: 99947
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault "during GIMPLE
pass: vect"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
-
g++ (GCC) 11.0.1 20210406 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99941
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
If we were more concerned about the performance of the big core, the answer
would be yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99949
Bug ID: 99949
Summary: ICE in setup_reg_classes, at reginfo.c:956
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99900
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrewjenner at gcc dot
gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The LTO minor saw a bump around Sep 10 last year already so the object files
must be younger or LTO should complain.
The specific assert that triggers isn't a sign of format divergence (it would
be a very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99924
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99924
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99748
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Fixed on trunk so far, needs a backport to GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
--- Comment #2 from jyong at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No, its the internal compiler symbols like LC5 and _LC6 generated by GCC
ignoring the underscore prefix setting for the target, causing GAS to emit them
as external undefined symbols. LD fails to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99873
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> We can also undo the splitting if SLP doesn't work out (keep the original
> DR analysis chaining somewhere).
Yeah, that sounds like something we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce btw, ../configure --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++
--with-cpu=power7 --enable-bootstrap --enable-multilib
on gcc110.fsffrance.org built just fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99887
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99910
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99911
--- Comment #2 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Created attachment 50510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50510=edit
Test Case (-std=c++20 -O3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99845
Keith Halligan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99911
--- Comment #3 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Also removed catch dependency from godbolt if that was the issue:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1YEoeeP93
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99928
Bug ID: 99928
Summary: [OpenMP] reduction variable in combined target
construct wrongly mapped as firstprivate
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99924
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
