https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
Nikhil Benesch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nikhil.benesch at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #57 from Levy ---
Thank you JiaWei for the CoreMark-Pro result.
Personally, I agree with Jim, since changing the split behaviour of try_combine
in the combine.c could affect other platforms, theoretically, we can fix it
with platform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98416
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This is invalid.
> The instruction which is failing is:
> 9c: f0 00 02 d0 xxspltib vs0,0
>
> Which is only valid in power9 and above.
> You need to mark CP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98402
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98416
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Created attachment 49831
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49831&action=edit
Disassembly of ppc_power9.o
Created with 'objdump --disassemble ppc_power9.o | c++filt >
ppc_power9.disass'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85648
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 49830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49830&action=edit
Fix
This patch depends on the one for bug 67343, and similarly is waiting for the
resolution of ABI issue 38.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 49829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49829&action=edit
Follow-on patch
And this one fixes ->:: according to the current ABI, but also holding for the
issue resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 49828
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49828&action=edit
WIP Fix
Here's my current patch for this bug, but I think I'm going to hold off on it
pending the resolution of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58fb912c15175f144b8a4ab52a4880b84994
commit r11-6300-g58fb912c15175f144b8a4ab52a4880b84994
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98318
--- Comment #5 from Hao Liu ---
Hi Nanthan,
We can still reprodcue this problem on CentOS 7 (X86) and CentOS 8.2 (AArch64).
We use last GCC version of yesterday:108beb75da
The configure and build commands are (Bash is used):
$ ../gcc/configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98402
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03ea48ff27fd40b04b148f7006a02513a887ad0d
commit r11-6297-g03ea48ff27fd40b04b148f7006a02513a887ad0d
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98353
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a477f1445b3093d01e68cd4c096c5776ad769e11
commit r11-6295-ga477f1445b3093d01e68cd4c096c5776ad769e11
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93480
--- Comment #4 from Will Wray ---
Thanks Jakub;
I applied your patch to trunk and ran more test cases for
nested arrays (including zero-size in various positions),
union element type, base classes - all passed as expected.
I tried to grok the pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98416
Bug ID: 98416
Summary: POWER8: SIGILL handler does not restart properly after
signal using GCC 10.2.1
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98397
--- Comment #1 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/562359.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98415
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you reproduce with r11-6281-gd8aeee11af715507e61464d390f14e4f4fde61b0 or
later?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98415
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98415
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Created attachment 49826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49826&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98415
Bug ID: 98415
Summary: [11 Regression] GCC crashes on Linux kernel build
after
r11-6271-g69165332a914f1167c3077fa1f57afc64fd8a667
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-21
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98364
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 49825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49825&action=edit
header only naive version
g++ -o naive naive.cc -Ofast -std=c++20 -s -flto
compile both of them and compare assembl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98364
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> Is this windows-specific? please privode preprocessed source and compilation
> command.
You need to just compile the code and then use objdump to view generated
asse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98364
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> Created attachment 49824 [details]
> just compile them and link together to see assembly.
compilation command
g++ -o main main.cc hello.cc -Ofast -std=c++20 -flto -fmodul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98364
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
> Is this windows-specific? please privode preprocessed source and compilation
> command.
no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98364
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 49824
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49824&action=edit
just compile them and link together to see assembly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98364
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Krupcale ---
I now observe this failure in the following two circumstances building multilib
bootstrap GCC:
- GCC 4.8.3 using GCC 10.2.1-9 on Fedora 33[1]
/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.8.3-20140911/obj-x86_64-redhat-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
--- Comment #9 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #7)
> Please take your diatribes to /dev/null. Are you able to test the patch?
fixed confirm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
--- Comment #8 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #7)
> Please take your diatribes to /dev/null. Are you able to test the patch?
Wait a second. I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Please take your diatribes to /dev/null. Are you able to test the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #3)
> Hm does rename(2) fail on windows if the new name exists? (in posix it
> replaces, otherwise there's gonna be a race condition)
well. tbh, on windows, the safest wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1467a5c5ab0dfbae3175b4a326467f939864dadb
commit r11-6289-g1467a5c5ab0dfbae3175b4a326467f939864dadb
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
> Created attachment 49823 [details]
> test patch
>
> This does an unlink before the rename, and also adds more logging. If it
> fails, please try with -fdump-lang-mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Can you try this? I guess we're finding the limitations of 'requires C++11'
Yes, this fixes all the compilation failures, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49823
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49823&action=edit
test patch
This does an unlink before the rename, and also adds more logging. If it
fails, please try with -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98386
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Hm does rename(2) fail on windows if the new name exists? (in posix it
replaces, otherwise there's gonna be a race condition)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49822
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49822&action=edit
test patch
Can you try this? I guess we're finding the limitations of 'requires C++11' :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #56 from jiawei ---
Hi Kito,
I test the performance data on qemu-riscv64, and compile the benchmark
with riscv-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -Os.
All the modify is set in /coremark-pro/util/make/
to change the toolchain and ru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks. The next errors are:
/homes/botcazou/gcc-head/src/libcody/client.cc: In function 'Cody::Packet
Cody::ConnectResponse(std::vector >&)':
/homes/botcazou/gcc-head/src/libcody/client.cc:217:64: error: '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #55 from Kito Cheng ---
Hi jiawei:
Thanks for the data, the performance changing for coremark-pro seems
interesting, could you find which part generate different code after the patch?
And I am curious what the platform you used for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98413
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with placement new |[11 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98413
--- Comment #1 from 欢乐的0403 <475647575 at qq dot com> ---
// A smaller example:
#include
struct A{
int m;
};
A a;
void f(int A::*member_pointer)
{
new (&(a.*member_pointer)) int;
}
//https://godbolt.org/z/KhPq9e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
Bug ID: 98414
Summary: [11 Regression] UBSAN bootstrap is broken:
ubsan/ubsan_type_hash_itanium.cpp:162: undefined
reference to `__dynamic_cast'
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98413
Bug ID: 98413
Summary: ICE with placement new
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #54 from jiawei ---
Hi Jim.
I had finished the test on the benchmark Coremark-pro.And it shows that the
patch doesn't accidentally increase code size.
This test with the args "XCMD='-c4' certify-all", and the result shows follow:
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98318
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98324
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 49821
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49821&action=edit
add pie
try this patch on top of:
626b63d63a2 2020-12-21 | libcody: Add ranlib
I could reproduce the error,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4043c636cef8d18074ce6865ed3271283f52bb5
commit r11-6284-ge4043c636cef8d18074ce6865ed3271283f52bb5
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98410
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
It's me having a thinko about case sensitivity.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98353
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49820
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49820&action=edit
gcc11-pr98353.patch
Untested fix for the gimplifier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98412
Bug ID: 98412
Summary: libcody does not compile with older GCC versions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> I'm not sure about the knot changes, isn't that too risky at least at this
> point?
> I mean, can't we instead just match what knot emits?
>
As indicated in
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98399
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> It's the problem of veclower
>
The root cause is missing expander of vashrv16qi, although x86 don't have
vector int8 shift instruction, it can be emulated by vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98399
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
It's the problem of veclower
test1.c.180t.veclower21
;; Function f (f, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=3990, cgraph_uid=1, symbol_order=0)
U f (U u)
{
vector(16) char _1;
U _3;
char _5;
char _6;
unsigned int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm not sure about the knot changes, isn't that too risky at least at this
point?
I mean, can't we instead just match what knot emits?
As for the new predicate, I think we should check CONST_DOUBLE_AS_FLOAT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
Created attachment 49819
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49819&action=edit
Incremental to gcc11-pr99348.patch
Update patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411
Bug ID: 98411
Summary: [10/11] Pointless: Array larger than
‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static
storage for main program variables
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 49806 [details]
> gcc11-pr98348.patch
>
> So, if we go for GCC11 the way of pre-reload define_insn_and_split, this is
> some incremental unteste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98287
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 49818
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49818&action=edit
another testcase
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -Og -fipa-cp another_testcase.c
during RTL pass: expand
another_testc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98410
Bug ID: 98410
Summary: Default constructor generation fails on abstract class
with virtual base
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
--- Comment #2 from Markus Böck ---
That is indeed weird.
At the top of the Makefile it says:
EXEEXT := .exe
and further down in the Makefile:
g++-mapper-server$(exeext): $(MAPPER.O) $(CODYLIB)
+$(CXX) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $^ $(VERSION.O)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98403
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98408
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98409
Bug ID: 98409
Summary: Installing g++-mapper-server fails when cross
compiling to Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, missed that this isn't any artificial parm like in C++, so guess the
primary question is why the two class array dummy arguments share anything
between the two procedures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It's my impression that the code compiles also with -O2
> or -O3, which might be an interim solution until this
> bug is fixed.
I only get a different ICE:
19 | subroutine fun1(this, a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems each function has properly its own this PARM_DECL, but the fun2 body
refers to the fun1 this PARM_DECL, which is invalid when fun2 is not nested in
fun1.
This wrong this PARM_DECL reference is added d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Also from the testsuite, files
./gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c
./gcc.dg/torture/pr98235.c
./gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-34.c
with -O3 show the same problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98383
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for gcc 11 so far, queued for backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98404
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Compiler emits unexpected |ldist might punt on too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98407
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98407
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8aeee11af715507e61464d390f14e4f4fde61b0
commit r11-6281-gd8aeee11af715507e61464d390f14e4f4fde61b0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Happens when:
(gdb) p node
$4 = (slp_tree) 0x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98407
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98393
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98407
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98318
Hao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hliu at amperecomputing dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
Ev Drikos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drikosev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98403
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98403
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: in |[11 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98408
Bug ID: 98408
Summary: Character lengths for allocatable character arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
