https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95769
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If we are going to optimize this at IPA time, I'll note we'd need a separate
middle-end IL evaluation code, because the FE one isn't usable for this (not
even through a langhook), because it relies on the IL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810
Bug ID: 95810
Summary: Spurious UBSan warning when computing the opposite of
the absolute value of INT_MIN
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95781
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95783
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95799
--- Comment #1 from felix ---
Created attachment 48767
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48767&action=edit
Sample program
I was pretty sure I attached this before. Never mind, here it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95784
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
I wouldn't be surprised if a version with a branch is faster even with each
of the branches mispredicted. cmovs are weird beasts but since they
are not dependent on each other their latency at least shouldn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95811
Bug ID: 95811
Summary: configure fails when crossing to x86_64: checking for
CET support...configure: error: cannot run test
program while cross compiling
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
Bug ID: 95812
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_dep_resolver since
r10-2114
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95801
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I have a patch exploiting this but it faces some correctness issues in the
propagators where some of them instantiate the assumptions before simplifying
the stmts themselves.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95801
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48768
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48768&action=edit
prototype
Here is the WIP patch, work is suspended. There may be a duplicate bug about
this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95805
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rsandifo at sources dot redhat.com |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95811
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. We seem to end up with a reduction partition not in the last
> position thus miss some required partition merging.
Sorry for the breakage.
Whew, this pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95614
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drikosev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95813
Bug ID: 95813
Summary: Making static member function a coroutine may cause
"defined but not used" warning for destroy(frame*)
function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I think it is rejected at instanition time.
>
> Hi, Andrew. Shouldn't it be rejected at compiling time?
It could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48769
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48769&action=edit
gcc11-pr95810.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #4 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The ill-formed template is not diagnosed unless you instantiate it.
> That is allowed by the standard.
Thank you Jonathan, thanks for your response.
As other maj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf07eea8429c923b7eb884ffc1b267c80a0a839c
commit r11-1582-gcf07eea8429c923b7eb884ffc1b267c80a0a839c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95770
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95814
Bug ID: 95814
Summary: Failure to optimize __builtin_ia32_rsqrtss properly
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95815
Bug ID: 95815
Summary: Infinite recursive error about "demangle_args"
"demangle_nested_args" in libiberty when running
cxxfilt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95816
Bug ID: 95816
Summary: Aarch64 jumps between Hot/Cold sections use possibly
clobbered registers x16/x17
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95798
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|Initialization co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95798
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps the change should be guarded on single_use?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42693
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d57bf2315e024ada3393ad967e8f632121383c9c
commit r11-1583-gd57bf2315e024ada3393ad967e8f632121383c9c
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95792
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95817
Bug ID: 95817
Summary: Failure to optimize shift with constant to compare
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c7ae01349f779f1d4e66d8831052ee59f9c948b
commit r10-8336-g2c7ae01349f779f1d4e66d8831052ee59f9c948b
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94998
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95585
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9aed5f1ccffc019ddf980e349caa3d092755cb4
commit r11-1584-gd9aed5f1ccffc019ddf980e349caa3d092755cb4
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95791
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9302421e71e85b4d3766a534ed9e1c4ae1e7a6ca
commit r11-1585-g9302421e71e85b4d3766a534ed9e1c4ae1e7a6ca
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Jun 20 16:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
Bug ID: 95818
Summary: wrong "used uninitialized" warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95798
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Partially related, using the following -O2 -fno-ipa-icf:
void
foo (int x, int *p)
{
p[x + 1] = 1;
}
void
bar (int x, int *p)
{
p[x + 1UL] = 1;
}
void
baz (int x, int *p)
{
unsigned long l = x;
l++;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95775
--- Comment #2 from Yichao Yu ---
> But it will blow up code-size considerably.
> So without some major work I don't think simply slapping target_clones on
> each function is going to fly in practice.
I mean, it'll blow up not much more than th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
--- Comment #2 from Yichao Yu ---
I only tested this with `target_clones` and it seems that I misread the
document for `target`. So this is only an issue with `target_clones` attribute.
`target` support this just fine.
So to be more clear, using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95791
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95262
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94260
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95054
Marcel Breyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #6 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> What practical impact does this have on any real world code?
> Why should we spend time on that, rather than the million other things we
> have to fix?
Hi, Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95777
--- Comment #3 from Yichao Yu ---
And for backward compatibility maybe
`target_clones("(sse4.1,arch=core2),default")` would work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95819
Bug ID: 95819
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95820
Bug ID: 95820
Summary: ICE in splice_late_return_type, at cp/pt.c:29034
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95820
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #0)
> $g++ -w -fpermissive small.cc
Here is a mistake, and it should be
$g++ -w -fpermissive bug.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #2 from Ferruh YIGIT ---
.i output [1] and .s output [2] below, please let me know if the request was
something else.
[1]
int
iavf_dev_link_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
__attribute__((__unused__)) int wait_to_complete)
{
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95820
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #2)
> Whew, this part IS can of worms. Will investigate it.
Great. The testcase I provided came from a C source code generator
called ccg.
Here is another C test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95708
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:647340c92a042e8e6f7d004637f07060dbde49c0
commit r11-1586-g647340c92a042e8e6f7d004637f07060dbde49c0
Author: Mark Eggleston
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95761
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r11-1582 PASS for me x_2.i and original (non-reduced) compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #6)
> My team nowadays are focusing on improving the quality of mature compilers.
> We just developed a tool to test them and then found those bugs. Our method
> might no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95614
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:10:25AM +, drikosev at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Ev Drikos ---
>
> Hello,
>
> Perhaps, an additional check in file resolve.c might be necessary, or
> one wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Thanks for the pointers. Putting the mangled name in a target-specific
attribute (like we do for SVE) seems to fix it. It actually also keeps
the testcase in comment 4 “working”, which is une
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48723|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #29)
> Created attachment 48771 [details]
> Testcase without lambda coroutines
>
> I modified the testcase to also build with clang and not depend on async
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
Bug ID: 95821
Summary: Failure to optimize strchr to use memchr for string
constant
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95822
Bug ID: 95822
Summary: [coroutines] compiler internal error with local object
with noexcept false destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93788
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95823
Bug ID: 95823
Summary: [coroutines] compiler internal error in
captures_temporary,
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95824
Bug ID: 95824
Summary: [coroutines] compiler crash
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95805
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95587
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c00ca04ba7e46d2d59e5a4f95ee7121cdc4ba224
commit r10-8337-gc00ca04ba7e46d2d59e5a4f95ee7121cdc4ba224
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Richard said "complete", that is the whole .i file, not just one random
function. If we cannot reproduce the issue by copying your code and compiling
it, we can't do anything about your report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ece7b4d5f0cef0811ee1a0ebbf00ba41c5cf080c
commit r10-8338-gece7b4d5f0cef0811ee1a0ebbf00ba41c5cf080c
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95688
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9056a5f1874eb85c74e439c4058b1e5c936b
commit r10-8340-g9056a5f1874eb85c74e439c4058b1e5c936b
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95687
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f067cc55d382c256308f85575bca3e42fe215541
commit r10-8339-gf067cc55d382c256308f85575bca3e42fe215541
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95707
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dd2fd9c4350529947fffc6bf257b5e22379554b
commit r10-8341-g4dd2fd9c4350529947fffc6bf257b5e22379554b
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95789
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95825
Bug ID: 95825
Summary: [7/8/9/10/11 Regression] boost::optional
-Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93976
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95826
Bug ID: 95826
Summary: ICE in gfc_match_decl_type_spec, at
fortran/decl.c:4290
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95827
Bug ID: 95827
Summary: ICE in gfc_get_string, at fortran/iresolve.c:70
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95828
Bug ID: 95828
Summary: ICE in resolve_select_rank, at fortran/resolve.c:9774
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95829
Bug ID: 95829
Summary: Bogus error with additional blanks in type(*)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95198
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95826
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95827
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Priority|P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95812
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Fix looks simple enough:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dependency.c b/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
index f6c68409e68..7edd5d9010d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
@@ -2031,10 +2031
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
