https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88923
--- Comment #1 from Vasilii Babich ---
Created attachment 45466
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45466&action=edit
test.cpp to reproduce the segfault
This program crashes for me when compiled with "gcc test.cpp -lstdc++" on b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88923
Bug ID: 88923
Summary: abi::__cxa_demangle segfault on a specific string
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88293
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897
--- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Some of the time, the uninitialized is due to using the object after the
> lifetime of the object has gone out of scope. I have not checked if that i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The configure is pretty simple:
/home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test2/configure
--prefix=/home/seurer/gcc/install/gcc-test2 --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++
--with-cpu=power8 --disable-bootstrap
--with-as=/h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #17 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #16)
> (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #15)
> > @Marc, it only now occurs to me that if libstdc++ uses
> > `__is_trivially_relocatable` as its userspace type-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Have you configured gcc with --enable-offload-targets= that includes
amdgcn-unknown-amdhsa ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #15)
> @Marc, it only now occurs to me that if libstdc++ uses
> `__is_trivially_relocatable` as its userspace type-trait name, then GCC
> won't be able to use `__is_tri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88921
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 79220, which changed state.
Bug 79220 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow= on a memcpy overflow with a
small power-of-2 size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79220
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79220
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88922
Bug ID: 88922
Summary: Merge identical constants with different modes
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
--- Comment #6 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #5)
> We have too many tests checking expected generated code. We should more
> focus on overall effect of the change. SPEC would be a good criterium
> although it is hard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> Is this ready to be submitted?
Already done - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00135.html .
I'll commit tomorrow unless somebody has furher to add.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88921
Bug ID: 88921
Summary: inconsistent warning on a power-of-2 memcpy with
out-of-bounds offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #15 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
@Marc, it only now occurs to me that if libstdc++ uses
`__is_trivially_relocatable` as its userspace type-trait name, then GCC won't
be able to use `__is_trivially_relocatable(T)` as the name of its compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87514
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 18 21:28:48 2019
New Revision: 268086
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88782 avoid ODR problems in std::make_shared
The old versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87520
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 18 21:28:48 2019
New Revision: 268086
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88782 avoid ODR problems in std::make_shared
The old versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88782
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 18 21:28:48 2019
New Revision: 268086
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88782 avoid ODR problems in std::make_shared
The old versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
We have too many tests checking expected generated code. We should more focus
on overall effect of the change. SPEC would be a good criterium although it is
hard to check SPEC for each patch.
I've check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918
Bug 88918 depends on bug 59071, which changed state.
Bug 59071 Summary: sse2 intrinsics and constant expressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59071
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59071
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Is this ready to be submitted?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 18 20:35:57 2019
New Revision: 268085
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268085&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88875 - error with explicit list constructor.
In my patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87939
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Weeks ---
The following patch attempts to address this issue & pr87326:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00131.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87326
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Weeks ---
I think that would be appropriate, especially since I submitted a patch that
attempts to address those two simultaneously:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00131.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88911
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
Bug ID: 88920
Summary: [9 regression] GCC is not configured to support
amdgcn-unknown-amdhsa as offload target
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
Bug ID: 88919
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88917
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
_startproc
vpmovzxbd (%rdi), %ymm0
vcvtdq2ps %ymm0, %ymm0
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE5186:
.size load_bytes_to_m256, .-load_bytes_to_m256
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20190118 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80862
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83618
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918
Bug ID: 88918
Summary: [meta-bug] x86 intrinsic issues
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20190118 (experimental) (GCC)
Interestingly, -fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-dereference prevents the problem,
even though the UB is not dereference, but potential divide by zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #13 from Kamlesh Kumar ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #12)
> I suspect that the patch in comment #1 will break libcalls in other
> situations, eg.
>
> void f1 (int y)
> {
> extern double d;
> d = y;
> }
Thanks Alan for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Jan 18 18:01:56 2019
New Revision: 268083
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268083&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix *movsi_from_df (PR88892)
The memory store instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80836
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm unsure what exactly this report is about. The first half seems to be about
building GCC itself, and ensuring it can find the libs that GCC relies on,
right?
That's simple, just build the support libs i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88890
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And, if I disable that define_insn_and_split altogether (add 0 && to the
condition), the assembly change is:
--- reduction-3.s2 2019-01-18 18:19:42.184057246 +0100
+++ reduction-3.s4 2019-01-18 18:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, both the following patches should fix it IMHO, but no idea which one if any
is right.
With
--- gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md.jj 2019-01-01 12:37:44.305529527 +0100
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md2019-01-18 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88890
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Jan 18 17:13:59 2019
New Revision: 268082
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268082&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libbacktrace/88890
* mmapio.c (backtrace_get_vie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88916
Bug ID: 88916
Summary: [x86] suboptimal code generated for integer
comparisons joined with boolean operators
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88423
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, I think so (just the vec_select arg?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 18 16:42:57 2019
New Revision: 268080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86926
* g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-lambda23.C: New t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
And even my own measurements show 6% slowdown at both -O2 and -Ofast with
generic march/tuning against GCC 7 and now also 5% slowdown at -Ofast and
native march/tuning against GCC 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
Bug ID: 88915
Summary: Try smaller vectorisation factors in scalar fallback
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88914
Bug ID: 88914
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong frequencies when unreachable statements
within the body of the for loop in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88913
Bug ID: 88913
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong frequencies when a global variable is in
a while expression in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37845
Yibiao Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yangyibiao at nju dot edu.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#define TARGET_F951_OPTIONS "%{!nostdinc:\
%:fortran-preinclude-file(-fpre-include= math-vector-fortran.h finclude%s/)}"
in config/gnu-user.h adds that if the file is found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
But 8 still ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
It is quite possible I am using the option incorrectly (though that should not
result in a segfault of course). Should some other flag be adding this to the
command line for me?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86926
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
Bug ID: 88912
Summary: Fortran compiler segfaults when pre-include file is
not found
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88911
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> tmp$ g++14 q.cc -fdumpspecs
Oops, ignore the "14" there, it's just a shell alias I use, but I missed one
instance that I meant to change to "g++"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88911
Bug ID: 88911
Summary: No "did you mean" for incorrect -dumpspecs option
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88899
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88910
Bug ID: 88910
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr88414.c 1 blank line(s) in
output
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jan 18 14:33:46 2019
New Revision: 268079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268079&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Update PR middle-end/88587 tests
It is wrong to use -m32 in dg-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
So yeah it seems that there are three issues here:
1) We should probably have an r -> r alternative for *neon_mov.
2) The costs are now flipped from what they were before, for some reason the
VFP regs are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Is this the same as PR 87214?
No, this one is probably related to RPO VN, I'm not finished with bisection.
And it also happens on non-avx512 targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra ---
I suspect that the patch in comment #1 will break libcalls in other situations,
eg.
void f1 (int y)
{
extern double d;
d = y;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88909
Bug ID: 88909
Summary: struct builtin_description doesn't support
ix86_isa_flags2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88799
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:25:37 2019
New Revision: 268077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268077&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/88799 Add +mp and +sec extensions to ARMv7-a (gcc-8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88903
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:13:21 2019
New Revision: 268076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88903
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88906
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I was getting either wrong code with 5+, or ICE with 4.9, or unknown compiler
argument with 4.8 -> I didn't find any gcc version where this was working.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88906
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #61 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:05:18 2019
New Revision: 268075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
c-family: Update unaligned adress of packed member check
Check un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88664
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:05:18 2019
New Revision: 268075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
c-family: Update unaligned adress of packed member check
Check una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The library patches aren't in yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88757
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88908
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88908
Bug ID: 88908
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in tree check: expected tree that
contains ‘decl common’ structure, have ‘indirect_ref’
in gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc, at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88907
Bug ID: 88907
Summary: Variadic template function deduction failure.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88904
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
6_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=i686-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-268059-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-i686
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 2
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
