https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93844
Bug ID: 93844
Summary: [debug] Incorrect scope for local variables
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
A recent regression. Gcc-9 works fine.
Bisection points to g:6271dd984d7f920d4fb17ad37af6a1f8e6b796dc
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 10.0.1 20200219 (experimental) [master
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93831
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, easyhack
CC|
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:29 AM Slava Barinov wrote:
>
> * cp/decl.c (reshape_init_array_1): Enforce constructor creation
> for VLAs when initialized with zero value.
> * testsuite/g++.dg/pr93730.C: New test
> * testsuite/g++.dg/abi/mangle72.C: Change mangling to ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93811
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note ___clear_cache was originally designed for trampolines. PoewrPC64v1 ABI
does not use trampolines for nested functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93828
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #190 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #189)
> On 2020-02-16 4:21 p.m., John David Anglin wrote:
> > On 2020-02-15 3:32 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> >> I have not had a chance to look t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93842
Bug ID: 93842
Summary: generic lambda accesses a variable with with automatic
storage duration that wasn't captured by the lambda
expression
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93829
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f9dd1b0bdd935592ba151e9d843fddf6193afbc
commit r10-6749-g8f9dd1b0bdd935592ba151e9d843fddf6193afbc
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93431
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
The following are unsupported:
UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/cpp2a/lambda-uneval9.C -std=c++98
UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/cpp2a/lambda-uneval9.C -std=c++14
UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/cpp2a/lambda-uneval9.C -std=c++17
Seems l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92128
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ccf86d54cb02ed24bc4568bd9fffdcdbf0bf68a8
commit r10-6748-gccf86d54cb02ed24bc4568bd9fffdcdbf0bf68a8
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93596
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93841
Bug ID: 93841
Summary: typo in or1kopt: generated using using
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79621
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93840
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93770
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93839
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:41:16PM +, roland.illig at gmx dot de wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
> Ok, if it's intentionally written in lowercase I'm fine with it. In the German
> translat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
Thanks for the explanation. I think it might make sense to have a static
analysis tool for cases like this, to prevent this mistake from the beginning,
or at least be notified quickly, before the translators h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93839
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93840
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The messages should be read from LOCALEDIR as passed to bindtextdomain.
If GCC is calling bindtextdomain from libc with the correct LOCALEDIR
argument, this is not a GCC bug. (If it's cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93770
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93839
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It is never valid to use HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT macros in calls to diagnostic
functions, because the HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT macros expand to host printf
formats (e.g. "I64" on MinGW host), which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93840
Bug ID: 93840
Summary: .po files are installed to PREFIX but read from
DATAROOTDIR
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93169
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93839
Bug ID: 93839
Summary: diagnostic starts with lowercase letter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93838
Bug ID: 93838
Summary: space at the end of a diagnostic in cp/parser.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93835
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93790
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93837
Bug ID: 93837
Summary: overly complicated code in
c_finish_omp_declare_variant
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836
Bug ID: 93836
Summary: teach xgettext what HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT means
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93761
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
fwiw the stack traceback doesn't look like it's concept related, probably some
other bug ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93168
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> Segher: did the above patch fix it for your terminal?
I haven't found time to test it on all those systems yet, no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So optimizing things in remove_range_assertions works for the reduced testcase,
but not for the original testcase. There's a couple of deeper issues that have
to be figured out for the original testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93168
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Segher: did the above patch fix it for your terminal?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77889
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-10-07 00:00:00 |2020-2-19
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63989
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-11-20 00:00:00 |2020-2-19
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93835
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93835
Bug ID: 93835
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in simplify_findloc_nodim, at
fortran/simplify.c:5513
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834
Bug ID: 93834
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in trans_caf_is_present, at
fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:8469
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Bug ID: 93833
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in trans_array_constructor, at
fortran/trans-array.c:2566
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93832
Bug ID: 93832
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in
gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor, at
fortran/primary.c:3100
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93831
Bug ID: 93831
Summary: wrong abbreviation in diagnostic for 64-bit Darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93830
Bug ID: 93830
Summary: typo in avr command line error message
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93829
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93829
Bug ID: 93829
Summary: [10 Regression] bogus -Wstringop-overflow on memcpy of
a struct with a pointer member from another with a
long string
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #15 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
In gcc 9 it is pretty easy to avoid this warning by adding an assert or
builtin_unreachable and we have done that in seastar.
Unfortunately the warning still shows up with gcc 8. Is there a know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93827
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93828
Bug ID: 93828
Summary: [10 Regression] incorrect shufps instruction emitted
for -march=k8
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93827
Bug ID: 93827
Summary: fails to initialize logical variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93825
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47877&action=edit
Draft patch
The attached patch fixes the issue for "tile". (By doing what is done in
gfc_resolve_code for EXEC_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93552
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> As PR 93825 shows,
Wrong PR – it is related, but the one relevant for this discussion is PR 93826.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93552
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
Bug ID: 93826
Summary: [OpenMP][OpenACC] Collapsed loop – code silently
ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93825
Bug ID: 93825
Summary: [OpenACC] Implicit typing not honored – bogus type
errors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I think VLA initialization should be rejected in C++ just as it is in C.
The mangling wasn't specified the last time I checked so unless there has been
some informal consensus on how to do it changing it for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93824
Bug ID: 93824
Summary: -Wredundant-tags false positives
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93591
--- Comment #1 from Jérôme Richard ---
It is worth noting that if OMP_DISPLAY_AFFINITY is set to TRUE, the runtime do
not print the affinity when the issue occur (and vice-versa: the value is
printed when no problem happend).
A deeper analysis sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Draft patch, lightly tested:
--- a/gcc/omp-expand.c
+++ b/gcc/omp-expand.c
@@ -6029,10 +6029,7 @@ expand_oacc_for (struct omp_region *region, struct
omp_for_data *fd)
basic_block cont_bb = region->cont; /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93823
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to fxue from comment #2)
> Duplicate of pr93707
Sorry about the dup, I searched for
"find_more_scalar_values_for_callers_subset" in Summary only; search in Comment
used to be slow (but it looks fast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
I've just tried to compile the preprocessed string.i with the current gcc 9
branch sh-elf cross compiler with the following options:
sh-elf-gcc -c -mieee -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
-Werror=format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93823
--- Comment #2 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Duplicate of pr93707
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> From below I implicitely assume you say that "1. + x != 1." -> "x != 0."
> isn't "rearranging at the source level".
No, it depends on how you do that. If i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another way to reduce things would be to move tuple_size and tuple_element from
to a new header, so that e.g. doesn't need
the whole of .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91724
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91724
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
that works again with the gcc-8 branch from 20200218. LTO link times however
are about three hours.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93767
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f91aa3e6cb808f8dfc6b45fa135f7583a7549161
commit r10-6732-gf91aa3e6cb808f8dfc6b45fa135f7583a7549161
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91724
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > I'm checking head with our GCC 8 build on armv7 which we build with
> > --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91724
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I'm checking head with our GCC 8 build on armv7 which we build with
> --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a15 --with-float=hard
> notably w/o --with-mode=thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93823
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
I agree that every separate optimization here is quite natural. At the same
time, the end result is quite unnatural.
The following is a look at the situation from an outsider POV.
-funsafe-math-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93821
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Don't we up __cplusplus only when we support all language features?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|sanitizer |c++
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
>
> --- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93821
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #2)
> You may have misunderstood my intentions here.
Yes, looks like I did. The way you phrased it (particularly "you need to use
this assertions so that there is
-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.1 20200219 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> with -funsafe-math-optimizations you get the 1 + x != 1 -> x != 0
> optimization which is unsafe because a rounding step is removed.
> But you asked for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93821
--- Comment #2 from Romain Geissler ---
You may have misunderstood my intentions here. I was just trying to suggest a
change which I think is better for the consistency with the standard and with
clang which just implemented this change.
So yes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db0e1e9948434352455db1e729383272d79105e8
commit r8-10037-gdb0e1e9948434352455db1e729383272d79105e8
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93776
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51faf07cef9293af544bfacc7d0b320ab90d7d60
commit r10-6723-g51faf07cef9293af544bfacc7d0b320ab90d7d60
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93776
Bug 93776 depends on bug 93667, which changed state.
Bug 93667 Summary: [10 regression] ICE in esra with nested
[[no_unique_address]] field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Bug 93711 depends on bug 93667, which changed state.
Bug 93667 Summary: [10 regression] ICE in esra with nested
[[no_unique_address]] field
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:665c5bad168ab63629b29ed2ce08ed042c088dc2
commit r10-6722-g665c5bad168ab63629b29ed2ce08ed042c088dc2
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93821
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #0)
> A few hours ago the clang folks did add explicit support for the flag
> -std=c++20, and not only did they change that, they also changed the value
> of __cplu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44ea6508f1009086018d0db4347a14b9c4eec2c0
commit r9-8256-g44ea6508f1009086018d0db4347a14b9c4eec2c0
Author: Mark Eggleston
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93822
Bug ID: 93822
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at
tree-ssanames.c:279 since r7-536-g381cdae49785fc4b
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93821
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> One may want to see whether GCC 10 is affected or not.
Yes, I can confirm it affects GCC-10 as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo