https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92699
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #21 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi All,
I took one of the other fn_spec's as a template - it might well have
been internal_pack.
Thanks for looking at this.
Cheers
Paul
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 13:04, jakub at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92699
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47379|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566
--- Comment #13 from Kewen Lin ---
Author: linkw
Date: Thu Nov 28 06:34:31 2019
New Revision: 278800
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278800&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rs6000] Fix PR92566 by checking VECTOR_UNIT_NONE_P
As Segher pointed out in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Marjamäki ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> (In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #12)
> > So, how would you fix the warning for `f`? Many programmers would "fix" it
> > with a cast.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92689
--- Comment #6 from Feng Xue ---
Good case. I did missed something, a const pointer does not imply it is
restrict and for a real const data, we can even create a non-const pointer
alias to it by using explicit type cast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92675
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
I tried godbolt trunk again for C++ today with -Wsign-conversion and it does
give a warning. I can only think I made a mistake while checking - unless a
patch has just gone in?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> Well I'm looking at the latest version
> (https://static.docs.arm.com/ddi0487/ea/DDI0487E_a_armv8_arm.pdf) where in
> figure B2-5 it explicitly states that a store that d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92701
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > I think this has been a latent bug since revision 243200:
> > > [AArch64] Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> Does that work? You cannot put all hard registers in memory I think?
> Or do we require that and it is just not documented?
It depends on insns. For
compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.0 20191127 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c bug.F90 -o bug.o
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xdd4adf crash_signal
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/toplev.c:328
0x7fa79dd101ef ???
/data001/abenson/Galacticus/Tools/glibc-2.12.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92206
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Nov 27 22:05:41 2019
New Revision: 278784
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278784&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92206 - ICE with typedef to dependent alias.
rsandifo's p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > I think this has been a latent bug since revision 243200:
> > [AArch64] Separate shrink wrapping hooks implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92661
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Peter Berg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92411
--- Comment #1 from Darrell Wright ---
sorry, posted incorrect CE link, but code below demonstrates it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47383|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47384
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47384&action=edit
gcc10-pr92695-3.patch
That is another bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92700
Bug ID: 92700
Summary: wrong "unintialized" warning with std::optional
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to Liu Hao from comment #7)
> > MSDN says 'the upper portions of YMM0-15 and ZMM0-15 are considered volatile
> > and must be considered de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92661
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Nov 27 20:55:56 2019
New Revision: 278783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not define DFP builtin functions, if DFP has been disabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Liu Hao from comment #7)
> MSDN says 'the upper portions of YMM0-15 and ZMM0-15 are considered volatile
> and must be considered destroyed on function calls' explicitly [1].
BTW: MSDN is clear tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92699
Bug ID: 92699
Summary: Slash should be removed from C/C++ plugin install
destination
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92661
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Liu Hao from comment #7)
> MSDN says 'the upper portions of YMM0-15 and ZMM0-15 are considered volatile
> and must be considered destroyed on function calls' explicitly [1].
>
> I am not clear abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #7 from Toni Neubert ---
First of all thank you very much for your extremly fast help!
I testet the patch and it did work for my second example.
But this one still fails, if we do not use the addressof function:
struct A {
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92698
Bug ID: 92698
Summary: Unnecessary copy in overlapping array assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Also #pragma are considered statements. There is another issue like this
> but instead using _Pragma .
I should say some Pragmas are considered statements.
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>it turns out the issue is a gcc issue and a glibc issue.
NOTE I had missed out a word here:
This should have read:
it turns out the issue is a gcc issue and NOT a glibc issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Since it's been a while since the last update: I've been trying
various non-invasive ways of fixing it, but even if they seem to be
strict improvements, they still leave open obvious traps of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92697
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
And for the record, I'm testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91273
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #30 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 91273 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92661
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||green at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92694
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47383
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47383&action=edit
gcc10-pr92695.patch
And here is a fix for the bogus warning. inline or constexpr on pure virtual
functions loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 27, 2019 2:36:38 PM GMT+01:00, "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
>
>--- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov ---
>(In reply to Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also #pragma are considered statements. There is another issue like this but
instead using _Pragma .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #7)
> As Jakub mentioned in comment 1, the native_encode_rtx ICE is coming
> from the call:
>
> simplify_subreg (DImode, const1_rtx, V1DImode,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > I don't mind if simplify_subreg doesn't call native_encode_rtx in the cases
> > where it ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 27 16:32:54 2019
New Revision: 278777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/92510
* combine.c (gen_lowpart_for_com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Either the function guarantees that *seq will be always non-NULL (at least if
the call doesn't return negative), but then there is no point in using out &&
*out, you can as well just use *out, because out wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264
--- Comment #6 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Ok, this seems quite clear from compiler developer point of view.
But I still want to add, that for compiler user, who knows how asprintf
function works, "Line A" version is correct and warning seems unneces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92697
Bug ID: 92697
Summary: IPA-SRA modifies ifunc_resolvers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591
--- Comment #3 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Created attachment 47380
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47380&action=edit
Parameters patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591
--- Comment #2 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Created attachment 47379
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47379&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92591
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To be precise, I meant something like:
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2019-11-27 10:03:37.916867165 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2019-11-27 16:55:17.475150697 +0100
@@ -1441,6 +1441,22 @@ cxx_bind_parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Liu Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #7 from Li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Sure, before that we would punt much earlier at simplification of the
> non-sensical subreg.
We probably should again then?
> I don't mind if simplify_subr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #7 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Wed Nov 27 15:23:02 2019
New Revision: 278775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Andrew Sutton
PR c++/92236
De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92439
--- Comment #3 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Wed Nov 27 15:16:37 2019
New Revision: 278774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Andrew Sutton
PR c++/92439
Im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
--- Comment #12 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Wed Nov 27 15:09:22 2019
New Revision: 278773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Andrew Sutton
PR c++/88395
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Does that work? You cannot put all hard registers in memory I think?
Or do we require that and it is just not documented?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
Bug ID: 92696
Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic ... interferes with if/else
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
So with all tricks I arrive at the following for the reduced testcase
f:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movl%ecx, %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||10walls at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91574
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|hubicka at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> @Uros: Any update about this? Do you know about somebody who can help us
> with an answer to your question?
This is MS ABI, so perhaps cygwin/mingw-w64 maintainer c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|NE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92600
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92510
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 27 14:24:47 2019
New Revision: 278770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/90007
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91916
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Iain: ping^2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
@Uros: Any update about this? Do you know about somebody who can help us with
an answer to your question?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92372
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Honza?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92599
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #2 from Toni Neubert ---
Copy paste error. The above example should be:
```
struct A {
constexpr virtual int get() = 0;
constexpr virtual int set(A *o) = 0;
};
struct B : A {
constexpr int get() override {
retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
--- Comment #1 from Toni Neubert ---
Future more, the following example also fails. Could be the same root cause but
another error message appears:
accessing value of 'f.Foo::b[0].B::' through a 'B' glvalue in a
constant expression
Clang is ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47377&action=edit
gcc10-fnspec-test.patch
Just for archival purposes, here is a short gcc plugin that allows testing "fn
spec" a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthijs Kooijman from comment #3)
> Fair point, though I think that it is hard to define a proper overload set
> here. In my case, I'm defining functions to print various sizes of integers.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92609
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92688
--- Comment #8 from SODA Noriyuki ---
> Libstdc++ cannot define _XOPEN_SOURCE though,
> because it could conflict with something the user defines.
Yeah, it has similar problem with _GNU_SOURCE,
_XOPEN_SOURCE is only closer to what it should be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
> Vladimir, can you look into this LRA inheritance issue?
Yes, I've started to work on this. I can not reproduce it on the current
trunk. But yesterday, I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #3 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
> I don't see why you should expect that, there's nothing in the standards
> suggesting it should be the case.
This is true, current behaviour is standards-compliant AFAICS. However, I
expect that becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. you get exactly the same overload failure if you call func(1u). The
problem is your overload set, not the definition of uintptr_t.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthijs Kooijman from comment #0)
> I would expect that, since both types are 32-bit long, they would actually
> resolve to the same type. This would also make overload resolution work as
> ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92695
Bug ID: 92695
Summary: [10, 9] P1064R0 - virtual constexpr fails if object
taken from array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
And I have one more test-case reduced from rubygem-passenger:
$ cat kit.ii
namespace Passenger {
namespace Json {
class Value;
}
namespace ConfigKit {
class Translator;
}
namespace LoggingKit {
void initializ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92690
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 27 12:16:54 2019
New Revision: 278764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92690
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 27 12:09:36 2019
New Revision: 278763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92694
Bug ID: 92694
Summary: Can't build powerpc-eabi cross compiler: :
fatal error: internal error: builtin function
‘__builtin_ddedpd’ had an unexpected return type ‘DD’
Product
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92693
Bug ID: 92693
Summary: Inconsistency between __UINTPTR_TYPE__ and
__UINT32_TYPE__ on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14799
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
