https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95434
Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johelegp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95434
Bug ID: 95434
Summary: ICE for CTAD in generic lambda within variadic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94128
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 92652, which changed state.
Bug 92652 Summary: function call to lambda expression that return true does not
satisfy the constraint in requires-clause if using return type deduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 92652, which changed state.
Bug 92652 Summary: function call to lambda expression that return true does not
satisfy the constraint in requires-clause if using return type deduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93698
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95241
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95241
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:798a9da416bbfd8996da9a5d53955b082d5b94fe
commit r10-8213-g798a9da416bbfd8996da9a5d53955b082d5b94fe
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6632f2920f08f5b45ffd1ada7006d4591ef9b172
commit r10-8215-g6632f2920f08f5b45ffd1ada7006d4591ef9b172
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
commit r10-8214-g03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94128
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
commit r10-8214-g03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93698
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
commit r10-8214-g03c344ad180e094140be514a5e7cbaf95b5dcd2e
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
Bug ID: 95433
Summary: Failure to completely optimize simple compare after
operations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95431
Yibiao Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yangyibiao at hust dot edu.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95432
Yibiao Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yangyibiao at hust dot edu.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95432
Bug ID: 95432
Summary: inconsistent behaviors at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95431
Bug ID: 95431
Summary: inconsistent behaviors at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95430
Bug ID: 95430
Summary: [UBSAN] doesn't detect out of bounds in a simple case
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c07c745b1ef62f633024824b7e125027f10c969b
commit r10-8211-gc07c745b1ef62f633024824b7e125027f10c969b
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e81c820a3e48ead478dabbd6988482747f7a521
commit r10-8212-g9e81c820a3e48ead478dabbd6988482747f7a521
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aef6e234a8a78db39b4ba034cc4c100c07c294a7
commit r11-738-gaef6e234a8a78db39b4ba034cc4c100c07c294a7
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95429
Bug ID: 95429
Summary: Wrong code generated for -Os with target m68k on
Ubuntu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95428
Bug ID: 95428
Summary: ABI breakage for "base object constructor" for final
classes
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95427
Bug ID: 95427
Summary: Failure to avoid emitting rbp initialization when
doing 256-bit memory store
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95426
Bug ID: 95426
Summary: libgccjit.so: error: RTL check: expected elt 2 type
'B', have '0' (rtx barrier) in BLOCK_FOR_INSN
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #20 from Richard Smith
---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #19)
> Not that it would make a difference in this particular situation, but is the
> intent of P0593R6 to only allow implicitly creating an object in the
> relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Downing ---
Not that it would make a difference in this particular situation, but is the
intent of P0593R6 to only allow implicitly creating an object in the relevant
storage location where one hasn't already been impl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95425
Bug ID: 95425
Summary: Failure to optimize bit twiddling on statics that does
nothing
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95294
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c75ebe76ae12ac4020f20a24f34606a594a40d15
commit r11-735-gc75ebe76ae12ac4020f20a24f34606a594a40d15
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fb595f8348e164d2f06536ba98322616eeaeeb6
commit r11-734-g2fb595f8348e164d2f06536ba98322616eeaeeb6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95181
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #18 from Richard Smith
---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #17)
> Also none of the behavior described in p0593 is required for this C++
> program to be well defined. All objects that are required to exists here are
> created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
We manage it with -fwrapv. This should happen late when we don't care about
overflow anymore, or it needs to introduce casts to an unsigned type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Could there be overflows which don't happen originally?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Downing ---
Also none of the behavior described in p0593 is required for this C++ program
to be well defined. All objects that are required to exists here are created
explicitly. It's not relying on the implicit creati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95373
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #7)
> This causes regressions on arm and aarch64:
Followup fix to cure this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-May/054420.html
Sorry for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch but was waiting until after the GCC 11 release.
I'll look into it next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95424
Bug ID: 95424
Summary: Failure to optimize division with numerator of 1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94749
--- Comment #2 from serpent7776 at gmail dot com ---
any update?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95371
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
--- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier ---
I've hit a similar thing with this function :
int f(int x)
{
return (x * x * x) - (3 * x) - 1;
}
Which can be optimized to `return (((x * x) - 3) * x) - 1;`, but isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9051b548274bffef9f41e720e1894d12cf68a47c
commit r11-732-g9051b548274bffef9f41e720e1894d12cf68a47c
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri May 29 12:2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95423
Bug ID: 95423
Summary: Failure to optimize separated multiplications by x and
square of x
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95052
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase with -O2 -fconserve-stack:
void bar (char *);
void
foo (void)
{
char buf[70] = "";
bar (buf);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We are in stage 1 now (for GCC 11), so nothing should be deferred now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7deca8c0b3765787627b11387b56b97b01a8bf33
commit r11-731-g7deca8c0b3765787627b11387b56b97b01a8bf33
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
> I am testing this:
[...]
Seems to work fine: at least configuring and building the 32 and 64-bit
libgomp multilibs now succeeds.
Thanks.
Rai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manfred Schwarb from comment #10)
> Is there a way to get useful backtraces? "--enable-checking=yes,extra"
> seems not to be enough...
Maybe some "fortify" option or a "sanitized" ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95399
Evan Nemerson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48635|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95421
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson ---
> Several functions are actually present in arm but not aarch64, I'm guessing
> that will be an easy place to start. Here is that list:
I pasted the wrong list here; that is actually the list of functions w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #19 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #18)
> @egallager: Why did you add 'deferred' keyword? I sent a patch for it to GCC
> patches mailing list.
because:
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95422
Bug ID: 95422
Summary: Possible false positive for
-Waddress-of-packed-member.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95421
Bug ID: 95421
Summary: [AArch64] Missing NEON functions documented on ARM's
web site
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #16 from Richard Smith
---
Per p0593, memcpy implicitly creates objects (of any implicit lifetime type) in
the destination. It does not propagate the objects in the source memory to the
destination memory, and can therefore be used t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
I am testing this:
diff --git a/config/cet.m4 b/config/cet.m4
index 2bb2c8a95ac..911fbd46475 100644
--- a/config/cet.m4
+++ b/config/cet.m4
@@ -7,13 +7,14 @@ GCC_ENABLE(cet, auto, ,[enable Intel CET in target
libr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95390
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95390
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f123dbb2dd2b3f7be81c90258ade9e6099ba19e3
commit r10-8209-gf123dbb2dd2b3f7be81c90258ade9e6099ba19e3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95390
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:316fe6b40165c26b30375f8ad85384379133f89b
commit r11-730-g316fe6b40165c26b30375f8ad85384379133f89b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #15 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
please refer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #14 from Qing Zhao ---
>
> -fprofile-dir=gcc_prof_dir/%p"
>
> So my recommendation would be not to use it and let GCOV run-time library
> merge
> the profiles. Of course, I'll be interested in `perf report` of such a
> instrumented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #13 from Qing Zhao ---
> The only exception is a cross-profiling:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Cross-profiling.html
>
> where one can use GCOV_PREFIX environment variable to save .gcda files to a
> separate location.
>
> Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95399
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95399
--- Comment #2 from Evan Nemerson ---
Created attachment 48635
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48635&action=edit
List of functions missing from 32-bit arm_neon.h
You're right, sorry. I'm not sure why I was thinking that hea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95344
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression]|[9/10 Regression]
|Wpa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95344
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f32d5294f51614f5637d81c522fccacc124f141
commit r11-729-g1f32d5294f51614f5637d81c522fccacc124f141
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e915901deb3518d4bef73ea52eab2ece7a2bbf6
commit r11-728-g8e915901deb3518d4bef73ea52eab2ece7a2bbf6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e915901deb3518d4bef73ea52eab2ece7a2bbf6
commit r11-728-g8e915901deb3518d4bef73ea52eab2ece7a2bbf6
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> Do you use it? Or do you use any of -fprofile-dir options?
Ah, ok, you use it. Based on the report:
-fprofile-dir=gcc_prof_dir/%p"
So my recommendation would be not to use it and let GCOV run-time librar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > 1) You should not generate profile data for each process to a different
> > folder, but rather merge it.
>
> not sure ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
>
> around 14000 processes, they are not the same executable, so not all the run
>
Both I guess they share the majority of compiled object files, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #9 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> 1) You should not generate profile data for each process to a different
> folder, but rather merge it.
not sure how to do this? can you provide more d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95420
Bug ID: 95420
Summary: arm-wrs-vxworks7: xgcc: error: unrecognised -mcpu
target: armv7-a
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348
--- Comment #8 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6
> Which means one run takes 100MB is size, right? As you mentioned, having
> 1000 .gcda files, it means that one takes 0.1MB?
around 14000 processes, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95386
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Downing ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #8)
> > From the C standard:
> > If a value is copied into an object having no declared type using memcpy or
> > memm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94812
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Thanks :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95419
Bug ID: 95419
Summary: [vax-openbsd] internal compiler error: in
assemble_integer, at varasm.c:2818 with -fexceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95415
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Perhaps, but it looks non-trivial.
Notes to self:
c/c-tree.h: struct c_declspecs has:
/* Whether "__thread" or "_Thread_local" was specified. */
BOOL_BITFIELD thread_p : 1;
/* Whether "__thread" rath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95090
--- Comment #10 from Manfred Schwarb ---
I just tried to build a compiler with "-fno-omit-frame-pointer" to
get potentially better backtraces, but then the ICE vanishes ...
Is there a way to get useful backtraces? "--enable-checking=yes,extra"
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95052
--- Comment #11 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Created attachment 48634
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48634&action=edit
Crash testcase (from Linux kernel)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> > How did CET changes add -march=i486 -mtune=i686? Can you bisect to the
> > commit?
>
> Done: the reghunt identified
>
> commit 4c1a5d8b71e29b71e0bc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95311
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 29 May 2020, ed at catmur dot uk wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
>
> --- Comment #12 from Ed Catmur ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> > N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
I successfully bootstrapped
commit c92716b2b1d117a803775a2e2336b751050ff7c2
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri May 29 13:21:41 2020 +0200
Port bugzilla-close-candidate script to git.
with
CC="cc -m32 -fno-lt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95052
--- Comment #10 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
To reproduce:
1. Configure GCC for arm-linux-gnueabihf (e.g., for x86_64->armhf cross):
--with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --disable-libmudflap --enable-lto --enable-shared
--without-included-gettext --enable-nls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95418
Bug ID: 95418
Summary: Static assert going off on MinGW
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> How did CET changes add -march=i486 -mtune=i686? Can you bisect to the commit?
Done: the reghunt identified
commit 4c1a5d8b71e29b71e0bc1004480c12c5fc427cb7
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349
--- Comment #12 from Ed Catmur ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Note that for C++ types you can apply memcpy to the placement new is not
> needed since object re-use terminates lifetime of the previous object and
> starts lifet
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
