https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101793
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 101770, which changed state.
Bug 101770 Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with only locals in GNU
diffutils
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101770
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101770
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96629
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 85301, which changed state.
Bug 85301 Summary: bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794
Bug 19794 depends on bug 84078, which changed state.
Bug 84078 Summary: false positive for -Wmaybe-uninitialized with __asm__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84078
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84078
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 84078, which changed state.
Bug 84078 Summary: false positive for -Wmaybe-uninitialized with __asm__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84078
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 80548, which changed state.
Bug 80548 Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false positive when an assignment is
added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80548
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80548
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
--- Comment #10 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> Fixed for gcc-12 too.
Thanks! ^v^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 57832, which changed state.
Bug 57832 Summary: compiling sha-256 code (xz 5.0.5) generates false warnings
when using -march=native on Atom CPU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81495
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83454
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87010
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91625
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
As noted in BZ104044 we've got a few places where we have extraneous
semicolons.
Committed as obvious to the trunk,
Jeff
commit 6d82e0fea5f988e829912aaa70a9964a81ad4e5e
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sat Nov 19 19:21:37 2022 -0700
[PR other/104044] Remove extraneous semicolons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104044
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104044
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d82e0fea5f988e829912aaa70a9964a81ad4e5e
commit r13-4173-g6d82e0fea5f988e829912aaa70a9964a81ad4e5e
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sat Nov 19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #13)
> More importantly, we should _not_ be adding the runtime exception to files
> in GCC proper. That exception is for the runtime. The fact that files in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
The tester started tripping this on s390-linux-gnu:
Tests that now fail, but worked before (19 tests):
gcc.dg/pr96542.c scan-tree-dump-times evrp "254" 2
The problem is we search for "254" in the dump file. The dump file
contains UIDs for function declarations. So changes in the number
From: Andrew Pinski
This another one of these ICE after error issues with the
gimplifier and a fallout from r12-3278-g823685221de986af.
The problem here is gimplify_modify_expr does not
check if either from or to was an error operand.
This adds the check and fixes the ICE.
OK? Bootstrapped and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 08:14:01PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
>
> --- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Weslley
On 19/11/2022 10:46, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 18.11.22 18:49, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 18/11/2022 17:20, Tobias Burnus wrote:
This looks wrong:
+ /* stackbase = (stack_segment_decr & 0x)
+ + stack_wave_offset);
+ seg_size =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90443
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90902
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80588
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107765
Bug ID: 107765
Summary: missing (int)-(unsigned)int_val to just -int_val if
int_val is known not to contain INT_MIN
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the loop one looks like:
if (input_4(D) != 0)
goto ; [89.00%]
else
goto ; [11.00%]
[local count: 105119324]:
_1 = (unsigned int) input_4(D);
_3 = -_1;
value_2 = (int) _3;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
Snapshot gcc-12-20221119 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20221119/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107659
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I was trying a fix that regressed on binding_label_tests_34.f90,
but looking into that it appears that this test is not correct,
as well as the comment at the top of it. The fix for pr94737 was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107582
--- Comment #10 from dimitri at ouroboros dot rocks ---
thanks for the analysis and the fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106560
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Summary|ICE after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is a pedwarn (pedantic warning, with -pedantic-errors a hard error).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Testing the following:
--- a/gcc/ipa-cp.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-cp.cc
@@ -5869,37 +5869,37 @@ cgraph_edge_brings_all_scalars_for_node (struct
cgraph_edge *cs,
/* Determine whether CS also brings all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107764
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It also does not help that clang and GCC disagree on how the C++ enums work
either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Weslley da Silva Pereira from comment #7)
> More data for the discussion:
> 1. In a Ubuntu 18.04.5 LTS, using GNU Fortran 7.5.0, I tested optimization
> flags `-O` but still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107661
--- Comment #11 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I think I found the bug: r13-3358-ge0403e95689af7
cgraph_edge_brings_all_agg_vals_for_node() accidentally changed behaviour of
the predicate:
- before the change: ipa-cp triggers when constrop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763
--- Comment #5 from Roman Lebedev ---
Thank you.
Forwarded to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59085
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #2)>
> Is this situation different in C++? looks like i set the component wrong.
> Is this implementation-defined behavior,
> or are you saying that clang is wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91950
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > I think this is actually a dup of another bug that asked the same thing, but
> > I forget its number...
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107764
Bug ID: 107764
Summary: -Wreturn-type and -Wuninitialized documentation could
link to a FAQ about enum and switches
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
No, it is not different in C++. See PR 91950 for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763
Roman Lebedev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |c++
--- Comment #2 from Roman Lebedev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763
Bug ID: 107763
Summary: -Wreturn-type false-positive with fully-covered switch
over enum
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107762
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107743
--- Comment #2 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
--disable-werror --enable-checking=yes --enable-debug --enable-multilib
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --enable-bootstrap
Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
This makes all the [iterator.range] functions always-inline, except the
ones that construct a std::reverse_iterator, as they do a little more
work. They could probably be made always_inline too though, and maybe
the std::reverse_iterator constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107762
Bug ID: 107762
Summary: [13 Regression] Recent change causing regressions on
s390-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14840
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14840
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c021f17e7d09a0eae2d6fb875c9a5484bd4e043
commit r13-4170-g5c021f17e7d09a0eae2d6fb875c9a5484bd4e043
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
On 11/17/22 21:53, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 14:44:31 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/8/22 12:55, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
If we are testing a register or a paradoxical subreg (i.e. anything
that is not
a partial subreg) for equality/non-equality with zero, we
On 11/18/22 19:53, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:06 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 11/18/22 11:05, apinski--- via Gcc-patches wrote:
From: Andrew Pinski
Since we use C++11 by default now, we can
use constexpr for some const decls in tree-core.h.
This patch does
Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/std/format: Fix -Wsign-compare warnings.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/format | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/format
Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
This fixes a Doxygen warning about a mismatched parameter name. The
standard uses 'r' here, like the Doxygen comment, so use '__r' instead
of '__e'.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/ptr_traits.h (pointer_traits::pointer_to): Rename
Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/107649
* include/std/complex (__complex_proj): Fix requires-clause.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/complex | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107649
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:945e86ddaa6cc7251d7bb57be8bb65f182cd3a0c
commit r13-4167-g945e86ddaa6cc7251d7bb57be8bb65f182cd3a0c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405
--- Comment #15 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
If in older C standard versions such enums are invalid, then I think
this should be a hard error rather than a silent ABI change for the code
produced. Not all code out there will have sanity checks
On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 at 13:03, François Dumont via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Without this qualification I have this in _GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION mode:
>
> /home/fdt/dev/gcc/build_versioned_ns/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/locale_facets.h:2649:
> note: candidate: 'template bool
Without this qualification I have this in _GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION mode:
/home/fdt/dev/gcc/build_versioned_ns/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/locale_facets.h:2649:
note: candidate: 'template bool std::__9::isxdigit(_CharT,
const locale&)'
在 2022-11-19 19:27, Jonathan Wakely 写道:
I rebased the patch and re-tested with those options, and all tests
passed again:
=== jit Summary ===
# of expected passes15081
The patch is OK for trunk if you have favorable answers for the above
two questions.
在 2022-11-19 19:27, Jonathan Wakely 写道:
I rebased the patch and re-tested with those options, and all tests
passed again:
=== jit Summary ===
# of expected passes15081
The patch is OK for trunk if you have favorable answers for the above
two questions.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 at 02:40, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Thanks, this is what I'm pushing:
>
Great.
I wonder if we should move the contents of libstdc++fs.a and
libstdc++_libbacktrace.a into libstdc++exp.a and make the former libraries
into linker scripts that point to libstdc++exp.a
It would
Richard Biener writes:
>> +/* We don't use language_function. */
>
> well ...
oops, yes - I'll remove the comment!
>> +struct GTY (()) language_function
>> +{
>> +
>> + /* While we are parsing the function, this contains information about
>> + the statement-tree that we are building. */
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Version|13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107713
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2adcbcc69a1d5d9554042f09ec35e72bf39fb56f
commit r12-8918-g2adcbcc69a1d5d9554042f09ec35e72bf39fb56f
Author: Jinyang He
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98859
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107761
Bug ID: 107761
Summary: Implement C++23
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107760
Bug ID: 107760
Summary: Implement C++23
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107759
Bug ID: 107759
Summary: Implement C++23
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 19:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 18:50, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > [Fixing typo in the Subject ("git" -> "jit" ); CCing jit mailing list]
> >
> > On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 17:16 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:51, Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107758
Bug ID: 107758
Summary: Implement
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 19:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 18:50, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > [Fixing typo in the Subject ("git" -> "jit" ); CCing jit mailing list]
> >
> > On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 17:16 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:51, Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107691
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a6c698ea31f587151a2fa4a982c8cc43bd9cc45
commit r13-4165-g5a6c698ea31f587151a2fa4a982c8cc43bd9cc45
Author: Bernhard
On 18.11.22 18:49, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 18/11/2022 17:20, Tobias Burnus wrote:
This looks wrong:
+/* stackbase = (stack_segment_decr & 0x)
++ stack_wave_offset);
+ seg_size = dispatch_ptr->private_segment_size;
+ stacklimit = stackbase +
Hi Jason!
Possible test.
An existing test might be to equip the existing warning for
bool unsigned double meh(void) {return 0;}
with a fix-it hint instead of the brief
error: two or more data types in declaration of ‘meh’.
Likewise for
bool unsigned meh(void) {return 0;}
error: ‘unsigned’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106462
--- Comment #4 from Yang Yujie ---
(In reply to Yang Yujie from comment #3)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> > I built mips64el-linux-gnuabi64 but using -mabi=64 -msingle-float for it
> > gives
> >
> > cc1: error: unsupported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106462
--- Comment #3 from Yang Yujie ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> I built mips64el-linux-gnuabi64 but using -mabi=64 -msingle-float for it
> gives
>
> cc1: error: unsupported combination: -mgp64 -mno-odd-spreg
>
> Did I miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 107684, which changed state.
Bug 107684 Summary: [C++23] P2589 - static operator[]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107684
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107684
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 106654, which changed state.
Bug 106654 Summary: [C++23] P1774 - Portable assumptions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 106652, which changed state.
Bug 106652 Summary: [C++23] P1467 - Extended floating-point types and standard
names
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106652
What|Removed
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo