Go is sufficiently known these days that we don't need to link when
we refer to it (all the more in this older page which few will read)
and when doing so reduces link maintenance work.
---
htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Type alignment lost inside |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96051
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
--- Comment #6 from James Y Knight ---
I realize that my suggestion above could only solve _most_ of the problem --
e.g. the original example, where the noexcept function doesn't have a try/catch
in it.
In that original example, there's no
param_get_a),
NULL));`.
* Use `GCC_JIT_TYPE_INT` instead of `GCC_JIT_TYPE_LONG`.
I've tested this the GCC master branch as of 20211204, and with OpenSUSE's GCC
version.
My `gcc -v` is:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/andy/temp/gccjitrepro2/install/libexec/gcc/x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103561
Bug ID: 103561
Summary: internal compiler error: segmentation fault when using
decay copy (auto(x)) inside requires expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103560
Bug ID: 103560
Summary: Error: GFC_INTEGER_4 should be available for the
library to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15882
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang gives:
:15:1: error: 'operator new' cannot have a dependent return type; use
'void *' instead
On 12/4/21 11:40 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> OK, what I have now is
>
> tkoenig@gcc-fortran:~$ echo $PATH
> /home/tkoenig/bin:/opt/at15.0/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games:/usr/local/games:/snap/bin
> tkoenig@gcc-fortran:~$ echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103537
--- Comment #7 from Hedayat Vatankhah ---
An interesting part of the problem is that following calls:
sc2.CallSamplePrivate();
sc2.CallOverloadedPrivate(4);
sc2.CallOverloadedPrivate(4.0f);
both before and after using MakeFake<>()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82802
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 49730, which changed state.
Bug 49730 Summary: loop not vectorized if inside another loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49730
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49730
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103537
Hedayat Vatankhah changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103537
--- Comment #5 from Hedayat Vatankhah ---
Oops, maybe I'm wrong. I forgot that I've also wrapped
SampleClass::SamplePrivate, so let me investigate further. Sorry for the
inconvenience.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103537
--- Comment #4 from Hedayat Vatankhah ---
Well, sorry if I should gave more logs to make it more clear.
Note that the crash happens here:
https://github.com/hedayat/powerfake/blob/a4c80d6628816656796d2e85b4422218da05ce00/powerfake.h#L257
And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103542
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Blocks|
Snapshot gcc-11-20211204 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20211204/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On 12/4/21 10:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> But when Thomas is working on the vanilla gcc tree, trying to make it work
> for Fortran, I think he'll need to patch that gcc tree too to use the
> AT15's dynamic linker and rpath like the AT15 gcc is.
That is part of the magic that happens when you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103554
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is SLP happening, I thought I have seen this issue before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:217d8bf22b148ebe52456a4bccfe9d725e7c68e9
commit r11-9359-g217d8bf22b148ebe52456a4bccfe9d725e7c68e9
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102717
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6fa3c73e88ccbb6fffb4169bcab830fc3f4f3c9a
commit r11-9358-g6fa3c73e88ccbb6fffb4169bcab830fc3f4f3c9a
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103555
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
DR 1200 seems like in this area.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1200
But there is a still an open defect report which mentions searching base
classes before template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103555
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Both ICC and MSVC reject it in the same way GCC rejects it so I am 99% sure
that there is either a defect report against the C++ standard or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103411
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d7add04d97cf7ac8e20cc8645c3c4173697d4ca
commit r11-9357-g9d7add04d97cf7ac8e20cc8645c3c4173697d4ca
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103555
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
My bet is http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1787r6.html
describes the problem and the solution to the issue here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103557
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103473
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82270
Paul Groke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also with -fno-trapping-math GCC is able to remove if even for < case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh it is because you are using the wrong test.
Try:
if (isless (x, 0))
__builtin_unreachable();
And yes there is a difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103473
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c1bcaa6224f79c6532dca28ebc7b466acbbc468
commit r11-9356-g3c1bcaa6224f79c6532dca28ebc7b466acbbc468
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e9c674dfc6fae8f967341759699b4d75943d256
commit r11-9355-g9e9c674dfc6fae8f967341759699b4d75943d256
Author: Harald Anlauf
+/* (a & b) ^ (a == b) -> !(a | b) */
+/* (a & b) == (a ^ b) -> !(a | b) */
+(for first_op (bit_xor eq)
+ second_op (eq bit_xor)
+ (simplify
+ (first_op:c (bit_and:c @0 @1) (second_op:c @0 @1))
+ (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
+&& types_match (TREE_TYPE (@0), TREE_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103283
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I did get some progress with the attempt:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
index 87089321a3b..d5bbcd493b6 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
@@ -1929,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103558
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Fix is already in upstream, just needs to be merged in.
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/3620
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there is another bug about this. Basically right now there is no jump
threading done for float comparisons nor any kind of VRP for them either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103559
Bug ID: 103559
Summary: Can't optimize away < 0 check on sqrt
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
This was fixed by r11-86.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
PR c++/93614
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/lookup18.C: New test.
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/lookup18.C | 17 +
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:066b3258bb1494cf3b49b6ac26da38be01f7ad8e
commit r12-5794-g066b3258bb1494cf3b49b6ac26da38be01f7ad8e
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
Here, decltype deduces the wrong type for certain expressions involving
bit-fields. Unlike in C, in C++ bit-field width is explicitly not part
of the type, so I think decltype should never deduce to 'int:N'. The
problem isn't that we're not calling unlowered_expr_type--we are--it's
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103557
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a dup of this bug and it might already be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103557
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92211
Neven Sajko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsajko at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103558
Bug ID: 103558
Summary: perf_event.d:2076:32: error: module 'bitmanip' is in
file 'std/bitmanip.d' which cannot be read
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #44
Hello-
As discussed on PR c++/53431, currently "#pragma GCC diagnostic" does
not always take effect for diagnostics generated by libcpp. The reason
is that libcpp itself does not interpret this pragma and only sends it on
to the frontend, hence the pragma is only honored if the frontend
arranges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
On 04.12.21 17:12, Peter Bergner via Fortran wrote:
As long as you keep the AT15 bin path before the system bin dirs, you should
be fine.
OK, what I have now is
tkoenig@gcc-fortran:~$ echo $PATH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103557
Bug ID: 103557
Summary: [12 regression] ICE on tpm2-tss-3.0.3: during RTL
pass: sched2: SIGSEGV in memory_operand()
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi Jason,
Hope you are well. Apologies for not coming back sooner.
>I'd put it just above the definition of saved_token_sentinel in parser.c.
Sounds good, done.
>Maybe cp_parser_require_end_of_template_parameter_list? Either way is
fine.
Even better, have changed it.
>Hmm, good point;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103556
Bug ID: 103556
Summary: [12 regression] rop test cases start failing after
r12-5780
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103555
Bug ID: 103555
Summary: out-of-line definition of class template method fails
in the presence of type named the same as template
argument
Product: gcc
Version:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 10:12:37AM -0600, Peter Bergner via Gcc wrote:
> On 12/4/21 9:37 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On 12/4/21 9:25 AM, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > ubuntu@gcc-fortran:/home/tkoenig/Tst$ ldd ./a.out
> > ./a.out: /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.34' not
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
pietro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pietro.gcc at sociotechnical
dot x
On 12/4/21 9:37 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 12/4/21 9:25 AM, Michael Meissner wrote:
> ubuntu@gcc-fortran:/home/tkoenig/Tst$ ldd ./a.out
> ./a.out: /lib/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.34' not found
> (required by ./a.out)
> linux-vdso64.so.1 (0x7f633962)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95009
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
This fixes a -Wuninitialized warning for std::cmatch m1, m2; m1=m2;
Also name the template parameters in the forward declaration, to get rid
of the noise in diagnostics.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/103549
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103549
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87710ec7b213245ecb194b778e97ae3a6790394f
commit r12-5792-g87710ec7b213245ecb194b778e97ae3a6790394f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71934
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51926
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51926=edit
gcc12-pr71934-reloc-wip.patch
Completely untested patch to perform PCH relocation.
Due to nested_ptr unfortunately
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103554
Bug ID: 103554
Summary: -mavx generates worse code on scalar code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
On 12/4/21 9:25 AM, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 02:42:13PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Note, the system ldd does not tend to accurately report the library
> dependencies for AT libraries:
And using AT15's ldd, it shows your a.out is linked to the correct libc:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 02:42:13PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> On 04.12.21 11:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > If zlib devel isn't installed, drop --with-system-zlib option
> > or use --without-system-zlib.
> >
> > You've asked in another mail how to configure gcc to default to
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84196
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103553
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103553
Bug ID: 103553
Summary: Show what decltype deduced in static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #10 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #9)
> Note adding -fno-tree-reassoc results in fewer instructions than clang.
maybe I am a little bit picky since I keep writing "portable assembly code"
with C++. I just
On 04.12.21 11:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
If zlib devel isn't installed, drop --with-system-zlib option
or use --without-system-zlib.
You've asked in another mail how to configure gcc to default to
-mabi=ieeelongdouble, that is
--with-long-double-format=ieee
Thanks for those hints.
I have now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103552
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||55004
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103552
Bug ID: 103552
Summary: Compile-time comparison of subobject and parent class
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59238
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||57082
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87066
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, since GCC 11, the example in comment #0 is accepted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102174
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103269
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59795
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||98939
Alias|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58184
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note both ICC and MSVC accept the attached example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
--- Comment #9 from Roger Sayle ---
Note adding -fno-tree-reassoc results in fewer instructions than clang.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12567
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
--- Comment #49 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #48)
> No, as previously stated, it's suspended until the Core issue is resolved
> and the standard is changed.
>
> https://wg21.link/cwg325
Some news on that front
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
Bug 98939 depends on bug 12228, which changed state.
Bug 12228 Summary: [DR 244/399] syntax error calling a qualified template dtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12228
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94404
Bug 94404 depends on bug 12228, which changed state.
Bug 12228 Summary: [DR 244/399] syntax error calling a qualified template dtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12228
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103550
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
---
On Sat, 4 Dec 2021, 10:03 Om Kenge, wrote:
> Respected Sir/Madam,
>
> I am Om Kenge, a Second Year IT Student, I have just entered my second year
> at MMCOE Pune. I am new to open source contributions but I am well aware of
> C++. I would love to contribute to your Organisation
>
> Hoping to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|fabien at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
On 12/3/21 9:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, 18:58 Dr. Jürgen Sauermann,
mailto:m...@juergen-sauermann.de>> wrote:
Hi,
not sure if this matters or how int can be fixed, but today I
observed
the following:
Your web page says that "Static assertions"
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 11:16:28AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> On 04.12.21 07:39, Michael Meissner via Fortran wrote:
> > I have loaded Advance Toolchain 15.0 on the system. It is located in
> > /opt/at15.0. AT 15 provides a GCC 11.2 compiler and GLIBC 2.34.
>
> I tried bootstrapping (from
On 04.12.21 07:39, Michael Meissner via Fortran wrote:
I have loaded Advance Toolchain 15.0 on the system. It is located in
/opt/at15.0. AT 15 provides a GCC 11.2 compiler and GLIBC 2.34.
I tried bootstrapping (from a separate account I set up on the
machine to make sure I don't mess up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102432
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102432
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fdef526a3a8cb4a6f89852979c7ca6437b994f3
commit r11-9354-g2fdef526a3a8cb4a6f89852979c7ca6437b994f3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Hi!
This patch fixes spelling of prefer (misspelled as preffer).
2021-12-04 Jakub Jelinek
* config/i386/x86-tune.def (X86_TUNE_PARTIAL_REG_DEPENDENCY): Fix
comment typo, Preffer -> prefer.
* ipa-modref-tree.c (modref_access_node::closer_pair_p): Likewise.
---
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
