https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104825
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Similar to PR103987. Testing patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104819
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> I believe this should be rejected as the rank is not known without a MOLD.
That's now an interpretation request:
https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/22/22-146.txt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104825
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Waterman ---
Cool, thanks, Patrick.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:58 PM patrick at rivosinc dot com via
Gcc-bugs wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
>
> Patrick O'Neill changed:
>
>
Cool, thanks, Patrick.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:58 PM patrick at rivosinc dot com via
Gcc-bugs wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
>
> Patrick O'Neill changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104618
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52577|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104833
Bug ID: 104833
Summary: disable-threads don't work for x86_64-linux-gnu target
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
--- Comment #6 from Patrick O'Neill ---
I just reviewed the manual - I was incorrect. Appendix A is correct. I forgot
that the RISCV implementation used leading fences. The second litmus test is no
longer valid since a simple load/store with no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104832
Bug ID: 104832
Summary: gccgo / libgo Reproducibility Problem
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104772
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
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=104831
--- Comment #5 from Patrick O'Neill ---
IIUC, Appendix A is incorrect.
We cannot allow any memory ops to enter within the LR/SC pair, since a
reordering like that is visible to other threads.
Here's a litmus test showing this fact:
(*
LR/SC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 104341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104341
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dinuxbg at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Waterman ---
Correction: Appendix A recommends lr.w.aqrl + sc.w.rl.
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/9ec8c0105dbf1492b57f6cafdb90a268628f476a/src/memory.tex#L1150-L1152
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:51 PM And
Correction: Appendix A recommends lr.w.aqrl + sc.w.rl.
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/9ec8c0105dbf1492b57f6cafdb90a268628f476a/src/memory.tex#L1150-L1152
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:51 PM Andrew Waterman wrote:
>
> Appendix A of the RISC-V ISA manual says that lr.w.aq + sc.w.aqrl
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Waterman ---
Appendix A of the RISC-V ISA manual says that lr.w.aq + sc.w.aqrl
should suffice. I see the patch puts aqrl on both the load and store,
which, while correct, appears to be stronger than necessary.
(cc Da
Appendix A of the RISC-V ISA manual says that lr.w.aq + sc.w.aqrl
should suffice. I see the patch puts aqrl on both the load and store,
which, while correct, appears to be stronger than necessary.
(cc Dan Lustig)
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:25 PM patrick at rivosinc dot com via
Gcc-bugs wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
--- Comment #2 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Created attachment 52577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52577&action=edit
Patch v1
Patch submitted to mailing list.
Subject: [PATCH] RISCV: Strengthen libatomic lrsc pairs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
--- Comment #1 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not quite sure what the rules on targeting 12 for this one: it's not
technically a regression, as it's always been broken, but it is a bug. I'd err
on the side of taking a fix, as we're just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Martin, since the warning is working correctly (even if it's arguably not as
clear as it could be), I'd like us to close this. If you agree, can you please
go ahead and mark this as resolved (either invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104618
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03e0c807ef50684cc1d49144948aa409decb91f9
commit r12-7528-g03e0c807ef50684cc1d49144948aa409decb91f9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
Bug ID: 104831
Summary: RISCV libatomic LR.aq/SC.rl pair insufficient for
SEQ_CST
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88059
--- Comment #6 from Rangel Moreira Fischer
---
When Compiler Optimization Level: Debug(-Og).
Compile OK.
When Compiler Optimization Level: Optimize for performance(-O2).
Compile Error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88059
--- Comment #5 from Rangel Moreira Fischer
---
I am using esp-idf sdk. I think gcc version is 8.4.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mckelvey at maskull dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104830
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104830
--- Comment #1 from James McKelvey ---
Created attachment 52576
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52576&action=edit
Config log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104830
Bug ID: 104830
Summary: Errors Building gcc-12-20220306 under Cygwin:
__terminate and more
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104811
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that gcc-8 to gcc-10 ICE on the testcase, and gcc-7 rejects character
array arguments (which is a F2003 feature).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Pure 32-bit PowerPC build |[12 Regression] Pure 32-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104829
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-linux
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104829
Bug ID: 104829
Summary: Pure 32-bit PowerPC build broken
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104811
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101909
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Summary|73% regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101910
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|tsvc regressions for -O2|[12 Regression] tsvc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99585
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0134b7383992aab5c1a91440dbdd8fbb747169c
commit r12-7526-gc0134b7383992aab5c1a91440dbdd8fbb747169c
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104430
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0134b7383992aab5c1a91440dbdd8fbb747169c
commit r12-7526-gc0134b7383992aab5c1a91440dbdd8fbb747169c
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #29 from Goswin von Brederlow ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> That is nonsense. The amount of code in the wild that relies on (type
> *)CONSTANT
> working is insane, you can't annotate it all. And it has worked f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99708
--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There should be a __SIZEOF_IEEE128__ as well, of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103460
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There are many patterns that use VEC_I, and not all have a V1TI variant
currently, so adding V1TI to it is not suitable for now. It is better to
add a new iterator for now.
This whole thing desperate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88059
Rangel Moreira Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rangel_fischer at yahoo dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104807
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||goswin-v-b at web dot de
--- Comment #28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104828
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101983
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104828
Bug ID: 104828
Summary: Wrong out-of-bounds array access warning on literal
pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101983
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0af37ad4422052be4b7f779737e14c80e57d0ad9
commit r12-7525-g0af37ad4422052be4b7f779737e14c80e57d0ad9
Author: David Malcolm
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0af37ad4422052be4b7f779737e14c80e57d0ad9
commit r12-7525-g0af37ad4422052be4b7f779737e14c80e57d0ad9
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96249
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|40883 |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104789
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
A much simplified test case that reproduces the same warning (with both GCC 12
and 11) is below. The underlying problem is that although GCC does have a way
to represent simple disjoint ranges of variable va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104789
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 52574
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52574&action=edit
Output of debug_ranger() for the affected function.
The IL the first warning triggers for in the test case in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104827
Bug ID: 104827
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in
gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr, at
fortran/trans-expr.cc:8329
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104826
Bug ID: 104826
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in gimple_range_global, at
value-query.cc:424
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104825
Bug ID: 104825
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_range,
at tree-ssa-alias.cc:840
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #7 from Paul McKenney ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Generally GCCs middle-end considers volatile stores (or loads) to not have
> any side-effects that are not visible in the IL. That includes (synchronous)
> rai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104823
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
r12-6075 is exposing a latent bug with non-dependent decltype folding, namely
we instantiate the expression only if it's potentially constant. In this case,
id(v) is not potentially constant because id is n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104824
Bug ID: 104824
Summary: std::comp_ellint1 handles domain error incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104823
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=104717
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As A.3 is in the body of a construct that is outlined into a separate function,
it should be moved to the *omp_fn* function with it.
If you look at simple
int
main ()
{
#pragma omp parallel
{
int a =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104823
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104823
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104814
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Oh forgot to mention it is just: gcc -O1 t.c
Works fine with -O{0,2,3}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78244
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104823
Bug ID: 104823
Summary: [12 Regression] narrowing conversion inside
non-dependent decltype operand silently accepted ever
since r12-6075
Product: gcc
Version: 12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104198
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104812
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104778
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce at least with current trunk, both with gcc configured for
powerpc64-linux-gnu and additional -m32, or in a cross to
powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu with the given options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104803
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104807
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4cb935cb69f12088975fa7f6907c6ace0580e2dd
commit r12-7522-g4cb935cb69f12088975fa7f6907c6ace0580e2dd
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104822
Bug ID: 104822
Summary: -Wscalar-storage-order warning for initialization from
NULL seems useless
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104821
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
Copy&paste error:
result->m_b = malloc (sz_c);
should have been:
result->m_c = malloc (sz_c);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104821
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Example: https://godbolt.org/z/afvEd99qn
#include
struct s
{
void *m_a;
void *m_b;
void *m_c;
};
struct s *
make_s (size_t sz_a, size_t sz_b, size_t sz_c)
{
struct s *result = calloc (1, sizeof
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104803
--- Comment #6 from Barry Revzin ---
Ugh, sorry. You guys are right. gcc is correct to reject the example. Bad bug
report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104821
Bug ID: 104821
Summary: RFE: consolidate analyzer leak diagnostics by
considering indirect vs direct leaks
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:111754595cf8d3a8ae7063a42ac4cea18a304711
commit r12-7521-g111754595cf8d3a8ae7063a42ac4cea18a304711
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104814
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> Are you suggesting to add an option to generate jump table with ENDBR?
Jump tables are a legitimate optimisation. NOTRACK is a weakness in CET
protections, and fully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104815
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
With the tentative patch, I'm running into:
...
ptxas 2224-1.o, line 72; error : Result discard mode is not allowed for
instruction 'ld'
nvptx-as: ptxas terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault], c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
--- Comment #6 from peterz at infradead dot org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #4)
> > I've worked around this in Xen with:
> > https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;
> > h=9d4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #4)
> I've worked around this in Xen with:
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;
> h=9d4a44380d273de22d5753883cbf5581795ff24d and
> https://lore.kernel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Cooper ---
I've worked around this in Xen with:
https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=9d4a44380d273de22d5753883cbf5581795ff24d
and
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/yixpv0q88paph...@hirez.programming.kic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104820
Bug ID: 104820
Summary: mips: ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.cc:407
with -fzero-call-used-regs=all -mips4
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104813
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104696
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> Namely:
> test.c--
> struct s { int *d; };
It makes more sense to use 'int d;' to match Fortran. Doing so yields in the
gimple dump:
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104789
--- Comment #7 from Rémi Verschelde ---
Took me a while, but I was able to make a proper reduced testcase by cutting
down the Godot case to the very minimal.
It's a bit convoluted (and the code doesn't make any sense anymore), but the
complexit
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
