https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94043
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 48122
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48122=edit
ppc64le tested patch
Thanks Richi!
A patch draft attached to ensure on the right track, also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94337
Bug ID: 94337
Summary: Incorrect "dereferencing type-punned pointer will
break strict-aliasing rules" warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94336
Bug ID: 94336
Summary: template keyword accepted before destructor names
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60846
mirh at protonmail dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirh at protonmail dot ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
--- Comment #2 from Romain Geissler ---
Thanks for the explanation.
However few observations:
- Is it really expected that the wording of the warning seems to imply gcc
knows for sure that there is an invalid access ? What is the warning meant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93819
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Carl Love :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e97929e20b2f52e6cfc046c1302324d1b24d95e3
commit r10-7389-ge97929e20b2f52e6cfc046c1302324d1b24d95e3
Author: Carl Love
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Bug ID: 94335
Summary: False positive -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think the ARM maintainers need to make a decision here.
Bernd, you might want to ping that last patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Will Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90763
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94257
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91498
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91614
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94334
Bug ID: 94334
Summary: new tests gcc.dg/lto/pr94271 fail
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48817fbd7616f086ac7bb1dd38b862f78762c9b8
commit r10-7384-g48817fbd7616f086ac7bb1dd38b862f78762c9b8
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94321
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eeb0c7c07133634eb5e98ba0348392684a763c95
commit r10-7383-geeb0c7c07133634eb5e98ba0348392684a763c95
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
An implementation is free to do whatever it wants when it finds
invalid/undefined code. A quality implementation will also let the user know
about it so it can be fixed. An even better one will let the user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Peepholes catch fewer cases, and it is very hard to write correct peepholes.
The only reason to use peepholes is when the other passes leave some important
optimisation on the table, and you cannot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94333
Bug ID: 94333
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault ( when
trying use structure binding in requires(requires{}))
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94292
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94292
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e4cd3cd259af2b5e04986a3f528a4f9f762
commit r10-7382-g6e4cd3cd259af2b5e04986a3f528a4f9f762
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94306
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
> Removing invalid code not isn't wrong (as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94332
Bug ID: 94332
Summary: [concepts] requires-expression that contains a
requires-expression incorrectly evaluates to false
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94319
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> so fixed
That's good news.
I've no idea how the broken code would have been reached.
Would it be worthwhile adding a test case to the test suite
which reaches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Summary|[8/9/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94004
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5228b1bc8cb81be494f5b5faa68b6b859ce0227
commit r10-7381-gb5228b1bc8cb81be494f5b5faa68b6b859ce0227
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94254
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94254
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:713ecb3d417363a4b12c725b335fce10355da206
commit r10-7380-g713ecb3d417363a4b12c725b335fce10355da206
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94265
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94254
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94265
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7a252ba2d0a08397d8fc6d6dc7db34f90f76acb
commit r10-7379-gc7a252ba2d0a08397d8fc6d6dc7db34f90f76acb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Removing invalid code not isn't wrong (as in non-conforming), but it's
decidedly unhelpful in avoiding the undefined behavior that doesn't necessarily
go away just because the invalid statement is gone. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
--- Comment #13 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> There are about 5,800 Fortran source code files, about 16,100 C++
> and about 35,800 C source code files. That's a lot.
>
> I'll start with Fortran, then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94315
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331
Bug ID: 94331
Summary: Bind(C) corrupts array descriptors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94331
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 48120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48120=edit
C code demonstrating problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94131
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94131
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05c13c439903eb78f109bcab62fd9a74f03a3c9b
commit r10-7378-g05c13c439903eb78f109bcab62fd9a74f03a3c9b
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81594
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
If you look at the original patch, it did try to do this optimization. When I
looked at it some time later, the combiner no longer generated the sequence
because it thought it was slower (due to length,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Bug ID: 94330
Summary: No warning if jobserver not available
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94322
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
--- Comment #8 from SRINATH PARVATHANENI ---
Hi David,
>>Can the author please indicate where the test cases for this code
>>are in the gcc trunk testsuite. I'll give them some exercise.
Christophe wrote:
> There are lots of tests under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> There are lots of tests under gcc.target/arm/mve,
About 2,400 C source code files.
> In the past I contributed Neon intrinsics executable tests (see
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93484
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2cc686897cc4d9935d4c8302af67565fa54c0aec
commit r8-10142-g2cc686897cc4d9935d4c8302af67565fa54c0aec
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94253
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Okay, the problem is the test lacks a '-fcommon' option.
The default was changed here:
2019-11-20 Wilco Dijkstra
PR85678
* common.opt (fcommon): Change init to 1.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48117|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
I am not sure how much testing this code got before it was
put into git.
Can the author please indicate where the test cases for this code
are in the gcc trunk testsuite. I'll give them some exercise.
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, let me take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
Gordon Mc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||9.2.0
--- Comment #5 from Gordon Mc ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
--- Comment #4 from Gordon Mc ---
This seems to be specific to GCC - I just tested with clang 7.1.0, and it
behaves as I would expect it to (both Asan and Ubsan content went to the UABSAN
log file - none went to stderr)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94329
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94329
Bug ID: 94329
Summary: gcc-9: error: use_only.f90: ‘-fcompare-debug’ failure
(length)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
--- Comment #2 from Gordon Mc ---
Created attachment 48116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48116=edit
Script to run the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
--- Comment #1 from Gordon Mc ---
Created attachment 48115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48115=edit
Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94328
Bug ID: 94328
Summary: Logging of defects to file does not work with Asan and
Ubsan combined
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93484
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dff885cdc00bbdccb5bb6277e4711093e3bbad1e
commit r9-8416-gdff885cdc00bbdccb5bb6277e4711093e3bbad1e
Author: Mark Eggleston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94319
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94327
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Created attachment 48113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48113=edit
C code demonstrating problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94319
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:83dfa06cb5cff143113cb7d632c90a40edefade8
commit r10-7376-g83dfa06cb5cff143113cb7d632c90a40edefade8
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94327
Bug ID: 94327
Summary: Bind(c) argument attributes are incorrectly set
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 9.3.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94326
Bug ID: 94326
Summary: g++: error: pack.ii: ‘-fcompare-debug’ failure
(length)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |srinath.parvathaneni at
arm dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94311
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Err, but isn't this interpreting the dwarf from 'date'? So doesn't this
> > mean that valgrind is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94317
--- Comment #3 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
Thanks David for reporting this issue, I'm working on it.
Could someone assign this to me, I could not do it myself.
Regards,
SRI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94325
Bug ID: 94325
Summary: [UBSAN] "invalid vptr" false positive for virtual
inheritance with -fno-sanitize-recover=all
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Bug ID: 94324
Summary: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc.
FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Bug ID: 94323
Summary: [10 Regression] g++: error: x.cpp: ‘-fcompare-debug’
failure since
r10-7359-g6e771c087b10d5b730240ea35478eab8694c9c5d
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94322
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94259
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68c4570a4dea8ed6fefaea50943fb74ea8f78319
commit r10-7375-g68c4570a4dea8ed6fefaea50943fb74ea8f78319
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94289
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Hi all!
My first comment is not very clear so to elaborate a bit.
For assumed-rank arrays no temporary array descriptor with the correct bounds
is created like it is for assumed-shape arrays.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94322
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
We're quite lazy in freeing all memory from generator tools (genhooks as you
report) but there are also known leaks in the driver when it comes to
command-line processing.
That is, not all memory leaks are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94322
Bug ID: 94322
Summary: Detected memory leaks while using clang
AddressSanitizer to build GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94311
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Err, but isn't this interpreting the dwarf from 'date'? So doesn't this
> mean that valgrind is "miscompiled" with --enable-lto rather than wrong
> debug?
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94321
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94321
Bug ID: 94321
Summary: gdc.dg/pr92216.d FAILs on 32-bit targets
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94319
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> git blame says:
>
> 49789fd08378 (Iain Sandoe 2020-01-18 11:54:46 + 2654) do_subtree = 0;
>
> Adding author.
indeed looks like a typo. thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94320
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94320
Bug ID: 94320
Summary: [OpenMP][Offloading] lto1 ICE during IPA pass: inline
– offline_size at gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:453
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
I don't think we need heavy machinery linking new and delete (and if we did I'd
be tempted to store it in some global table rather than in the nodes). The most
important case is the global replacable
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
