https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792
Bug ID: 109792
Summary: RFE: Warn about misuse of "pure" attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c13906f258fb34b3e0c90ddc8d9191dd72f3da0e
commit r14-639-gc13906f258fb34b3e0c90ddc8d9191dd72f3da0e
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbb6cf926f1732559b3a8aaf2796d34e8651c066
commit r14-640-gbbb6cf926f1732559b3a8aaf2796d34e8651c066
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55035=edit
evaluate_prg_hwy.ii.xz (13)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O0:
LRA non-specific : 33.12 ( 20%) 0.06 ( 1%) 33.15 ( 19%)
279M ( 25%)
LRA virtuals elimination : 2.08 ( 1%) 0.00 ( 0%) 2.08 ( 1%)
18M ( 2%)
LRA reload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13/14 Regression] |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||c++-lambda,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55034|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0069ce6631880776a44fb8408c6428c0812285cf
commit r12-9526-g0069ce6631880776a44fb8408c6428c0812285cf
Author: Dan Horák
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109793
Bug ID: 109793
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr108950.c from
r11-10752-gd4cbcb9e45c6d4 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.3.0, 12.2.0, 13.1.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109795
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>The following compiles on GCC 13.1.0 when it should not:
You have the opposite way around. GCC is the one which rejects this code while
the other compilers accept it ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109765
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Report is at https://marc.info/?l=gmp-bugs=168367093126416=2. I ended up
sending it a few times because I've had mail delivery problems before and I
didn't realise the list was moderated even for subscribers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh I know this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90207
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|---
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97700
--- Comment #5 from Lukas Böger ---
One part of this seems to be resolved with version 13. Below, only the lambda
use case fails to compile, whereas prior to version 13, both type aliases are
rejected:
```
void fun() {}
struct S
{
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100961
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
Bug ID: 109794
Summary: Compile time hog when building chromium on
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109795
Bug ID: 109795
Summary: is_standard_layout incorrect for colliding member and
base class
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108303
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 108303, which changed state.
Bug 108303 Summary: lookup failes with requires clause on non-template friend
function of a class template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108303
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
At -O0, it seems like LRA is taking a long time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> At -O0, it seems like LRA is taking a long time.
But -O0 completes for me on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104069
Miklos Karacsony changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkaracsony81 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109793
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105660
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Martin Uecker
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4308f9d432a108026d6ae8ad99d40a52eea341f
commit r12-9522-ga4308f9d432a108026d6ae8ad99d40a52eea341f
Author: Martin Uecker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a8302d2a4669984c7c287d12ef5b37cde6699c80
commit r14-602-ga8302d2a4669984c7c287d12ef5b37cde6699c80
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108950
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2835feb9c29de9167c7af19209065357899b808d
commit r12-9523-g2835feb9c29de9167c7af19209065357899b808d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7408a0b93e6f6b3ce9b6be17bb9b5d2307f5ecf1
commit r12-9524-g7408a0b93e6f6b3ce9b6be17bb9b5d2307f5ecf1
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5aa649c98dcf58240299029f7dce02ee29ba6296
commit r11-10754-g5aa649c98dcf58240299029f7dce02ee29ba6296
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:817d1496e17806bdefab1e0fb06abdf56df58cbd
commit r11-10753-g817d1496e17806bdefab1e0fb06abdf56df58cbd
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f06a5c09287ad4606872403c6f8b01d1fe2f5540
commit r10-11398-gf06a5c09287ad4606872403c6f8b01d1fe2f5540
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d68d989286340c20bc0f713addf44dc0f0d77ac3
commit r10-11399-gd68d989286340c20bc0f713addf44dc0f0d77ac3
Author: Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
An update on the int_range_max memory bloat work.
As Andrew mentioned, having int_range<25> solves the problem, but is just
kicking the can down the road. I ran some stats on what we actually need on a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788
Bug ID: 109788
Summary: [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error:
shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long
unsigned int
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109661
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Could you post the backport here (or chuck it on the 13 branch) so we could
pull it in for gentoo? thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107888
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55026=edit
Patch which adds what I Mentioned
I still need to add the testcases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2cf2dc988eb93551fa1c01d3f8d73ef21f39dc5
commit r14-603-gc2cf2dc988eb93551fa1c01d3f8d73ef21f39dc5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107888
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55027=edit
testcases
max is optimized with this, max1 was already handled.
min was already handled, min1 is optimized with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108950
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4cbcb9e45c6d45cdbc15583e1a418c13150d8c7
commit r11-10752-gd4cbcb9e45c6d45cdbc15583e1a418c13150d8c7
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109747
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
void foo(int *a, int b, int c)
{
a[0] = b;
a[1] = c;
a[2] = b;
a[3] = c;
a[4] = c;
a[5] = b;
a[6] = c;
a[7] = b;
}
for a simpler testcase. We get
node 0x583ae48 1 times vec_construct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109786
Bug ID: 109786
Summary: basic_string.h: runtime error: execution reached an
unreachable program point
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109786
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109703
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu.ojxq8 at dralias dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #21 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
>
> heh, despite that I've not done anything to it since 2019 actually it builds
> and the tests pass - at least for C. Anyway, see what you think and how it
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14 Regression] |[14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
Seems good at date 20221106, so the date range is [20221106..20230417].
Trying 20230205.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Broken at 20230205, so range is now [20221106.. 20230205].
Trying snapshot 20221218
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #18 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #16)
>
> AFAIR the main blocker to progress was trying to decide how to represent the
> target/language/language version dependencies of the features and extensions
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> Broken at 20230205, so range is now [20221106.. 20230205].
>
> Trying snapshot 20221218
That was good, so range is 20221218..20230108.
Trying snapshot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97f404d53e0f47013afd728e617d03ecc585c6b7
commit r13-7310-g97f404d53e0f47013afd728e617d03ecc585c6b7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5fd2537b36d7ad32e9cb64ddf196105172f919f5
commit r13-7311-g5fd2537b36d7ad32e9cb64ddf196105172f919f5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #18)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #16)
> >
> > AFAIR the main blocker to progress was trying to decide how to represent the
> > target/language/language
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase in comment#2 still reproduces on the GCC 11 branch but no longer
with GCC 12+ (on x86_64-linux, -O2).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
Bug ID: 109785
Summary: ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
As far as the snapshots go, 20221218..20221225 seems to be the range.
In git, this is g:fd69977febf399d1992bbf8d66ae9170e0a4dc9f ..
g:febb58d28bfa4b544ec7ffec2d61f46d25205ff0, which is 123 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
although, I guess, we could have one table and somehow include the target in
predicates if appropriate...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109666
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785
--- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 109666 ***
Ah thanks, and sorry for the dup. Searched for bagin_maybe_infinite_loop and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99987
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109668
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Started with zen tuning revision r13-4839-geef81eefcdc2a5.
The issue is also reproducible with -march=haswell or -march=skylake, so you
can use those for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> > Started with zen tuning revision r13-4839-geef81eefcdc2a5.
>
> The issue is also reproducible with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787
Bug ID: 109787
Summary: Warn about contract violations that can be detected at
compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It's definitely "odd" API, are you sure it's only used from CCP? It was
present forever ...
The fix looks good to me of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109670
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108758
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109770
--- Comment #8 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
>
> Ah, interesting. I was looking for an answer whether
>
> new T
>
> may produce anything other than an object with dynamic type T or if there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109784
--- Comment #2 from Season <1342367762 at qq dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> FSF GCC does not have the patches in it to support aarch64 darwin yet. so
> please file this bug with Homebrew:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Seems good with g:18547874ee205d83 dated 20220515 and bad with
g:73f7109ffb159302,
dated yesterday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109770
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> > #include
> >
> > struct Base
> > {
> > virtual ~Base() {}
> > };
> > struct A : Base
> > {
> > virtual ~A()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109069
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109784
Bug ID: 109784
Summary: Arrays of type std::vector do not compile correctly
when their size increases
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108809
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108589
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109770
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109069
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e24077cbe72d9335a2b23a3e4023cfd4707bd97
commit r13-7308-g5e24077cbe72d9335a2b23a3e4023cfd4707bd97
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108758
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bc2cf17eb9e79e69498f721cb42c59c3eda69fc
commit r13-7309-g6bc2cf17eb9e79e69498f721cb42c59c3eda69fc
Author: Kewen Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108140
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|csmith: runtime crash with |[12/13/14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695
--- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Comment on attachment 55031 [details]
> WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<>
>
> What I meant is that by using a auto_vec could avoid reimplementing larger
>
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
