https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Yeah, I think these kind of testsuite changes are no good.
The loop threading restrictions disallow a couple jump threads (rotating the
loop and crossing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102842
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> Hint: its not an option to upgrade to gcc-11.2.0, since the cross compile
> bootstrap is fundamentally broken by missing fenv header in the gcc-11
> branch. Mixing up host and target compiler versions is n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101746
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102869
Bug ID: 102869
Summary: Expansion pattern 'std::integer_sequence' contains no
parameter packs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
MAIL ACCESS BLOCKED!!
10/21/2021 7:32:00 a.m.
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Some incοming emαils has been temporarily blocked because your
mail storage space has exceeded its quota, kindly reαctivate
αccess immediately.
Access for gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org expires on 10/21/2021 7:32:00
a.m.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102870
Bug ID: 102870
Summary: ICE: unexpected expression 'Is' of kind
template_parm_index
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102855
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102871
Bug ID: 102871
Summary: ICE in unify, at cp/pt.c:23752 since
r7-4431-g4a826ca6feb3c7ec
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
>
> --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-21
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102742
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> > Is there something else we could do?
>
> Look what exactly is missing and restore that - testcases are written
> from real-world code that we expect to optimize, adjusting them to
> hide the fact that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Btw,
i = N;
if (i > 0)
{
do
{
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d438dd2523a35e073eed04d146f1e73e2514d93d
commit r12-4593-gd438dd2523a35e073eed04d146f1e73e2514d93d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:005ebe1c07843e6312cd70523945fa1d729e7253
commit r12-4595-g005ebe1c07843e6312cd70523945fa1d729e7253
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36ec4a3c927bd2cc212a7f331ad842cd90eb5283
commit r12-4597-g36ec4a3c927bd2cc212a7f331ad842cd90eb5283
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102864
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:113860301f46d14a255bd947d18d36f917527230
commit r12-4598-g113860301f46d14a255bd947d18d36f917527230
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102872
Bug ID: 102872
Summary: If statement is always false but not figured out at
gimple level
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102872
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this does not get optimized at the rtl level on all targets either, e.g.
aarch64 we get:
tst w0, 65535
and w0, w0, 65535
ccmpw0, 0, 4, eq
beq .L3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64888
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40dd9d839e52f679d8eabc1c5ca0ca17a5ccfd14
commit r12-4599-g40dd9d839e52f679d8eabc1c5ca0ca17a5ccfd14
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91806
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102873
Bug ID: 102873
Summary: GCC incorrectly expected parameter pack before '...'
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102812
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8a889fc0e115d40a2d02f32842655f3eadc8fa1
commit r12-4601-gc8a889fc0e115d40a2d02f32842655f3eadc8fa1
Author: Hongyu Wang
Date: Wed O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.1.0, 7.5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102857
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
vect/bb-slp-16.c has been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7878981f1d44b4c9bb6c4a3137b37f06c725b73d
commit r12-4603-g7878981f1d44b4c9bb6c4a3137b37f06c725b73d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This still fails as of r12-4600-gf5ef4da3ccdfbedb .
I will go debug this tomorrow to see what exactly is going on and why the
warning is still not resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
Bug ID: 102874
Summary: [12 regression] src/x86/win64.S doesn't assemble with
Solaris as
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 51642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51642&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> index 9cbc1af4cc9..8f527452bd0 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
>
> --- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582249.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8516963942b0a8f06fa8f5ebd7c37f9edea151ac
commit r12-4604-g8516963942b0a8f06fa8f5ebd7c37f9edea151ac
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102875
Bug ID: 102875
Summary: __builtin_strncpy output may be truncated copying
bytes from a string of length
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-21
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Bug ID: 102876
Summary: GCC fails to use constant initialization even when it
knows the value to initialize
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102358
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=102766
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Cross ref – Martin's patch (current iteration) for this PR and PR102585 is at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582103.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102877
Bug ID: 102877
Summary: missed optimization: memcpy produces lots more asm
than otherwise
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102842
tt_1 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #11 from tt_1 ---
(In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102878
Bug ID: 102878
Summary: Internal compiler error with coroutine calling
constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102875
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
t 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211021 (experimental) (GCC)
Started with
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=2e96b5f14e4025691b57d2301d71aa6092ed44bc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:701ee067807b80957c65bd7ff94b6099a27181de
commit r12-4607-g701ee067807b80957c65bd7ff94b6099a27181de
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.2.1, 12.0
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102585
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
commit r12-4608-gb4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102766
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
commit r12-4608-gb4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102766
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102585
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
jmp .L9
.cfi_endproc
gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211021 (experimental) (GCC)
Started with
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
--- Comment #3 from Mathias Stearn ---
> Why not just make the function constexpr though?
That isn't always possible. Sometimes the initializer may call a third-party
function that is inline, but not yet marked constexpr (it may need to support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102880
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102881
Bug ID: 102881
Summary: gcc totally broken when trailing return type combine
with decltype lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>> Does the committed patch fix the issue on Solaris?
>
> I'll s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so, first question, is GOMP_HAVE_EFFICIENT_ALIGNED_ALLOC defined in your
case?
Can be seen e.g. from objdump -dr alloc.o and seeing if gomp_aligned_free is
just a (tail?) call to free without anything el
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Ok, so, first question, is GOMP_HAVE_EFFICIENT_ALIGNED_ALLOC defined in your
> case?
It is since all of HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC, HAVE_POSIX_MEMALIG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 51644
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51644&action=edit
32-bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 loop_ull.[is]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, I see, there is still the team->work_shares array where the whole team
structure in which it is present is allocated with gomp_malloc.
So, either we need to drop the aligned (64) attribute regardless of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102881
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #0)
> template
> using R = decltype([] { return 0; }());
>
> template
> auto you_can_see_me() -> R {
> return {};
> }
>
> int main() {
> you_can_see_me<0>();
> }
>
> GCC rejects w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
>
>
> So, presumably _62 == 0 cannot be true. If _62 == 0, then
>
> 0 = _30 >> _6;
>
> But that cannot happen because _30 is 2 if you follow the series o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||4131
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882
Bug ID: 102882
Summary: [AIX] 23_containers 96088 testsuite failures
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The build is indeed once again working on power 7. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102883
Bug ID: 102883
Summary: Calling co_yield with initializer list containing
shared_ptr causes internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> @H.J. Can you please document that one needs at least i686 CPU for the
> functionality?
Like this?
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index c66a2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102764
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9262ae450d6a57837c58645c2ee66365bbe08338
commit r12-4616-g9262ae450d6a57837c58645c2ee66365bbe08338
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102764
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102358
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f7976f65b45c457b57bfc2c55ec845771e0d3c2
commit r12-4617-g5f7976f65b45c457b57bfc2c55ec845771e0d3c2
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #0)
> Does this testcase require overriding operator new[] in the library itself,
> not only the testcase?
Yes, I think so. The allocations done by the std::string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102884
Bug ID: 102884
Summary: Incorrect compile error with id-expression in requires
clause before member initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> > @H.J. Can you please document that one needs at least i686 CPU for the
> > functionality?
>
> Like this?
>
> diff --g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102867
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 51646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51646&action=edit
Change test to not use std::string
This patch changes the testcase to use a custom instantiation of
std::bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102884
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102854
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51647
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51647&action=edit
gcc12-pr102854-wip.patch
WIP patch. Clearly still more work is needed, apparently pointer iterators
in non-re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102885
Bug ID: 102885
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE when compiling
gfortran.dg/bind_c_char_10.f90 with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102859
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102886
Bug ID: 102886
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-18.c fails
starting with r12-4607
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102842
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The patch just hid the bug. I believe the bug is still present on the trunk
too.
The insn in question is
(insn 26 64 109 3 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 134 [ _12 ])
(plus:SI (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94022
Bug 94022 depends on bug 94070, which changed state.
Bug 94070 Summary: Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled,
SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51648&action=edit
preprocessed source
unreduced preprocessed source which fails still as of r12-4600.
-fno-PIE -c -g -O2 -fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
It's not clear to me that this optimization should use the constexpr machinery;
as I commented on bug 4131. If optimization turns the initialization of a
static variable into a simple matter of storing a co
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
