https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90350
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
This might be material for David Malcolm's new static analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68160
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79221
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> Similar to bug 79220, the -Wstringop-overflow option diagnoses the buffer
> overflow in the call to strcat in f() in the program below but fails to do
> the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65308
--- Comment #3 from Jim Porter ---
Testing via godbolt, this is working as of gcc 7.2.
Not sure if I should mark this resolved myself or wait for a GCC person to
confirm...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92904
--- Comment #1 from Jesse Huard ---
Created attachment 47468
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47468=edit
Original test source file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92904
Bug ID: 92904
Summary: GCC generates movdqa instructions to unaligned memory
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.1.0
Summary|Unhelpful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 10 23:49:40 2019
New Revision: 279205
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279205=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92891
* builtins.c (gimple_call_alloc_size):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92903
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
There are a lot of bswap optimizations missing I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92903
--- Comment #1 from Julius Werner ---
For reference, clang 10.0.0 manages to do this optimization correctly:
(File Offset: 0x40):
0: b8 01 00 00 00 mov$0x1,%eax
5: 81 ff 23 45 67 89 cmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92903
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92903
Bug ID: 92903
Summary: Cannot elide byteswap when only needed to compare to
multiple constants
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a target specific issue. That is each target decides where to put the
jump table. On some targets, it is already done not in the text section but
the rodata section. It seems like sparc is not one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Bug ID: 92902
Summary: gcc 9.2 puts "jump tables" in the .text section
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92901
Bug ID: 92901
Summary: new test case c-c++-common/goacc/clause-locations.c in
r279169 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Dec 10 22:07:57 2019
New Revision: 279204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279204=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-12-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/92796
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91643
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91643
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Dec 10 21:59:09 2019
New Revision: 279203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279203=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-12-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/91643
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57082
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92898
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code added in r276272 checks for closely related invalid code.
The following patch might fix the ICE:
Index: gcc/fortran/check.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92898
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
Bug ID: 92900
Summary: Cannot use member of packed struct in constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89047
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #4)
> Where does this line come from ?
> >18 | c = g
Nowhere (as fas as this PR is concerned). Different test case,
please disregard comment #3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92882
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 10 21:05:59 2019
New Revision: 279196
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279196=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/92882
* regstat.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92774
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92883
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 10 21:04:57 2019
New Revision: 279194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279194=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ipa/92883
* ipa-cp.c (propagate_vr_across_jump_function): Pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92825
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 10 21:04:08 2019
New Revision: 279193
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279193=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92825
* cfgexpand.c (add_stack_protection_conflicts):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91643
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92847
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89047
--- Comment #4 from G. Steinmetz ---
Where does this line come from ?
>18 | c = g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92859
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92899
Bug ID: 92899
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_omp_atomic, at
fortran/trans-openmp.c:3769
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92898
Bug ID: 92898
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_check_is_contiguous, at
fortran/check.c:7157
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92897
Bug ID: 92897
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_set_array_spec, at
fortran/array.c:864
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Some offsets are narrower than others but sizes returned either by
compute_objsize() or by compute_builtin_object_size() should always be
sizetype. The wide_int APIs helpful abort when their arguments don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
With a plain array constructor :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
print *, [integer :: 1, [integer(8) :: '2']]
end
$ gfortran-10-20191208 -c z2.f90 -fdec -fno-range-check
$ gfortran-10-20191208 -c z2.f90 -fdec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896
Bug ID: 92896
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in reduce_unary, at
fortran/arith.c:1283
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89069
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92895
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92446
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92847
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Dec 10 20:12:50 2019
New Revision: 279185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279185=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92847 - C++20 comparison ambiguity with class template.
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92560
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Dec 10 20:06:58 2019
New Revision: 279183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279183=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92560 - ICE with decltype and rewritten operator.
A call as the
Hi,
Are you interested in acquiring a targeted marketing list to increase sales?
We help you connect to the decision makers from the industries you want to
reach. We can customize the verified list and provide contacts from the
industries and location you want to reach to promote your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92874
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92874
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Dec 10 18:57:30 2019
New Revision: 279181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279181=gcc=rev
Log:
Bail out in gfc_dep_compare_expr for a NULL argument.
2019-12-10 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89047
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92863
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92863
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Dec 10 18:31:33 2019
New Revision: 279180
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279180=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-12-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/92863
* misc.c (gfc_typename): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59655
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I can confirm the #c0/#c1 case, I think #c4/#c5 are actually invalid testcases.
For #c1, a slightly modified testcase where the foo call is before the
static_assert rather than after it works (emits just one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #10 from Boris ---
Ok, fair enough. After all, security is not free. :)
If you need me to test anything else, lemme know.
Thx guys.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Defining Str like so works for the test case:
struct Str {
template Str(Cat c)
{
struct Flex { char c, a[]; } *p = (Flex*)get();
c.add(p->a);
}
};
by changing the IL the warning sees to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92895
Bug ID: 92895
Summary: [libstdc++] stop_token conformance issues
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92889
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92886
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 10 17:35:42 2019
New Revision: 279175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279175=gcc=rev
Log:
libstdc++: Fix description of std::ios::trunc (PR 92886)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82520
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is a scheduling pass in between the peephole2 which this patch uses and
the final pass, so it is possible there was some other instruction in between
before scheduling, thus the peephole2 didn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In the patch attached in this PR, yes, but I think it is fixed in the one I've
posted to gcc-patches -
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00664.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59655
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Comment 6 seems to be a different issue, so I've reported that as PR 92894
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Bug ID: 92894
Summary: "declared using local type 'test01()::X', is used but
never defined" during concept satisfaction
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #7 from Boris ---
Created attachment 47465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47465=edit
Micha's patterns fix
Fix for mix-up between patterns with and without multi-nodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #6 from Boris ---
Ok, so there was a mix-up between patterns with and without multi-nodes
in your untested fix, which Micha found and fixed, see attached patch.
(otherwise it wouldn't even build a whole kernel).
With it, it fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92848
--- Comment #4 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #3)
> (In reply to jules from comment #2)
> > Again, please don't change this code under the feet of the refcount overhaul
> > patch!
>
> But why? This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92886
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92893
Bug ID: 92893
Summary: Unhelpful -Wstringop-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92892
Bug ID: 92892
Summary: [AARCH64] TBL-based permutations can be implemented
more efficiently for 2-element vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code:
int a, b;
int *c() __attribute__((alloc_size(1)));
void d() {
char *e = c(1);
while (a) {
if (b <= 0)
continue;
e[b] = 0;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59655
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-03-08 00:00:00 |2019-12-10
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92886
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77725
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nknikita at niisi dot ras.ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92890
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92889
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92891
Bug ID: 92891
Summary: ice in decompose, at wide-int.h:984
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92890
Bug ID: 92890
Summary: Member name lookup
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
After some more thought I think I need to correct myself: I suppose even in a
ctor the this pointer might need to be treated as having escaped and be
accessible to a replacement operator new, but placement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92793
--- Comment #4 from Frederik Harwath ---
Author: frederik
Date: Tue Dec 10 16:12:58 2019
New Revision: 279169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279169=gcc=rev
Log:
Add tests to verify OpenACC clause locations
Check that the column
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90282
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #29 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 47463
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47463=edit
nop plugin
Hi Maxim,
Just to clear my conscience, could you please try the nop trick in your
setup? I normally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Nevermind, I had some local changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I've found an ICE:
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
int c = 42;
};
void
fn ()
{
auto y = new A(1, 2);
}
$ ./cc1plus -quiet i.C -std=c++2a
In function ‘void fn()’:
cc1plus: internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007
--- Comment #28 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #27)
> With
>
> -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DPERL_CORE -O3 -save-temps=obj
> -fopt-info-vec-optimized -DSPEC_CPU_LP64 -DSPEC_CPU_LINUX_X64
> -fgnu89-inline
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47462=edit
gcc10-pr92723.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92889
Bug ID: 92889
Summary: GCC-8 considers the _mm_gf2p8affine_epi64_epi8
intrinsic to be symmetric
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to jules from comment #6)
> This patch fixes the acc_map_data-device_already-3.c problem, which I guess
> has probably been broken forever. [...]
..., hence not a priority to get that fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92745
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess this example should be compiled:
A new-expression that creates an object of type T initializes that object as
follows:
...
-- Otherwise, the new-initializer is interpreted according to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92888
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Created attachment 47460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47460=edit
'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/pr92888-1.c'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92888
Bug ID: 92888
Summary: [OpenACC] Failure to resolve back via 'acc_hostptr' an
'acc_deviceptr' retrieved for a '#pragma acc declare'd
variable
Product: gcc
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
