https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jiangning Liu from comment #12)
> Hi Richi,
>
> > That said, "failure" to identify the common (vector) load is known
> > and I do have experimental patches trying to address that but did
> > n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #6 from Zeb Figura ---
It is my impression that gcc is interested in avoiding false positives for its
warnings. This isn't to say that there aren't some number of false positives in
existence, but it is my impression that gcc is inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
And you can tell the compiler some fact about the semantics of the Windoge API
functions if you really need -Werror=nonnull (though I cannot see any reason
you must use -Werror here):
int GetSystemDirectory16(c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #3)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > > The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111700
Bug ID: 111700
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in needs_read_p (input.cc:598) with
-fdiagnostics-format=sarif-file or
-fdiagnostics-format=sarif-stderr on pre-processed
inpu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111699
Bug ID: 111699
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in
fold_build3_loc/fold_ternary_loc/generic_simplify_VEC_
COND_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111679
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
/* (~a) | (a ^ b) --> (~a) | (~b)
(which might be done into ~(a & b) depending on if ~a is not a cmp) */
(simplify
(bit_ior:c @0 (bit_xor:c @1 @2))
(with { bool wascmp; }
(if (bitwise_inverted_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
The difference between the 2 is the costing of the __printf_chk/puts:
_FORTIFY_SOURCE case:
freq:0.20 size: 3 time:2.43 __printf_chk (1, "Object code generation not
active! Forgot to call quantum_objcode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56046|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111696
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I remember seeing this similar issue before where PRE/FRE/VN decides the two
addresses are the same (they are) but since waccess does not realize other
passes will use the restricted address still and still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111696
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The vectorizer has not much to do with the warning issue except for the IR
change into FRE.
Before fre5:
_11 = &last_14(D)->s;
memcpy (_11, &cur.s, 24);
After:
vectp.7_19 = &accum_13(D)->sD.4831.aD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138
--- Comment #12 from Jiangning Liu
---
Hi Richi,
> That said, "failure" to identify the common (vector) load is known
> and I do have experimental patches trying to address that but did
> not yet arrive at a conclusive "best" approach.
It was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111698
Bug ID: 111698
Summary: Narrow memory access of compare to byte width
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The easiest way to find documentation for an option is to look at the index
> located at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/Option-Index.html
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-04
Summary|Online ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
Jonathan Leffler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Leffler ---
The link
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#index-Wuse-after-free
is to the "Options Controlling C++ Dialect".
I was using the C compiler, not the C++ compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Leffler ---
The link
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#index-Wuse-after-free
is to the "Options Controlling C++ Dialect".
I was using the C compiler, not the C++ compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The easiest way to find documentation for an option is to look at the index
located at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/Option-Index.html
And search for the option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Documented here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#index-Wuse-after-free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111697
Bug ID: 111697
Summary: Sub optimal code gen for initialising vector using
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111694
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111696
Bug ID: 111696
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Spurious -Wstringop-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695
Jonathan Leffler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56047|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Leffler ---
Created attachment 56050
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56050&action=edit
gcc-bug-4.c — Variation 4 (one array — does not generate -Wuse-after-free
warnings)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Leffler ---
Created attachment 56049
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56049&action=edit
gcc-bug-3.c — Variation 3 (one array: does not generate -Wuse-after-free
warnings)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695
Jonathan Leffler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathan.leffler at gmail dot
com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695
Bug ID: 111695
Summary: Spurious -Wuse-after-free when managing two arrays in
parallel
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #10 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
It seems that both libc++ and MS STL implement std::sort without a temporary
object passed to cmp, because they are fine with compiling the following code
in constant expression (where unrelated pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Yeah, that seems to be it. If I cannot fix this tomorrow I'll revert the patch
from master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111694
Bug ID: 111694
Summary: Wrong behavior for signbit of negative zero when
optimizing
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693
Bug ID: 111693
Summary: Online manual mentions -Wuse-after-free but does not
document it further
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note even though the optimization was in GCC 11+ (r11-2550-gca2b8c082c4f added
it), only GCC 13+ hits it in this case as GCC 13 lowers the vector comparison
and uses the scalar for the one element signed 64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110701
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:263369b2f7f726a3d4b269678d2c13a9d06a041e
commit r14-4398-g263369b2f7f726a3d4b269678d2c13a9d06a041e
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is the code in IsInf causes the difference ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
With -fwrapv:
_87 = _92 * 2;
NativeSet___trans_tmp_3 = { -2 };
_84 = _87 == -2;
Without:
_84 = _92 == -1;
I think that is correct ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, adding -fwrapv allows the testcase to pass ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #3 from Zeb Figura ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not
> > make sense. It should be just rewritten as
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #22 from Robin Dapp ---
Ah, then it's not that different, your machine is just faster ;)
callgraph ipa passes : 69.77 ( 11%) 5.97 ( 13%) 76.05 ( 12%)
2409M ( 10%)
integration: 91.95 ( 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111664
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111690
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109353
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111686
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111686
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's been failing for a while for me, and I don't think it can possibly be
related to that commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #18 from psykose ---
> Could you please run a regression to identify which commit along GCC-13
> branch introduce the change at least to get the ball rolling ?
note that it might not actually be a regression; it's possible the cv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
I have a release checking GCC 13.2 based host compiler, profile ordered similar
to yours is the following where 'integration' is inlining
callgraph ipa passes : 22.94 ( 12%) 2.24 ( 12%)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you need me to try something let me know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111661
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Bégou ---
With tab an instantiation of an r2tab type described above by Tobias Burnus
this is what I am doing to enlarge the allocatable tab%val attribute to [n,m]
elements with gcc13.2.
!$acc exit data delete(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #8 from Hanke Zhang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Add -save-temps and attach the resulting .i (or .ii) file.
Thank you. I have attached it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672
--- Comment #7 from Hanke Zhang ---
Created attachment 56046
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56046&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I made a mistake checking out the correct commit, so please disregard comment
#1, I'm trying again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111664
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:027a94cf32be0b53d163e252e3c9e4800ad8f5f4
commit r14-4395-g027a94cf32be0b53d163e252e3c9e4800ad8f5f4
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Mon Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111682
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-04
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I was not able to reproduce this error on gcc112 on compile farm
(powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #20 from Robin Dapp ---
Mhm, why is your profile so different from mine? I'm also on an x86_64 host
with a 13.2.1 host compiler (Fedora).
Is it because of the preprocessed source? Or am I just reading the timing
report wrong?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Compiling insn-emit.ii on a x86_64 host with a 13.2 release compiler shows most
time is spent in inlining and CFG cleanup (the latter possibly in functions
with a very large number of conditionals).
For C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111692
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #18 from Robin Dapp ---
Just finished an initial timing run, sorted, first 10:
Time variable usr sys wall
GGC
phase opt and generate : 567.60 ( 97%) 38.23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
--- Comment #17 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> That returns a address to a local variable ...
Sorry I am having a hard time driving cvise correctly.
Here is the latest version:
g++-13 -g -o works inf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56015|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111692
Bug ID: 111692
Summary: ICE in output_constant at varasm:cc:5267 during RTL
"final" pass
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> And this conservatively has to apply to all FP divisions where we might infer
> "nonnegative" unless we can also infer !zerop?
Yes, I think the logic in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111616
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 111616, which changed state.
Bug 111616 Summary: On Zen2 7% 519.lbm_r regression between g:1d17d58c284fa8c3
(2023-09-14 02:39) and g:c8e9a75085f9725c (2023-09-18 13:09)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111616
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|11.5
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97731
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9eed5712110b63a0021358cbf195d32c5b372638
commit r11-11049-g9eed5712110b63a0021358cbf195d32c5b372638
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d69407149194e2a7ee20537c76acb1976c8659be
commit r11-11048-gd69407149194e2a7ee20537c76acb1976c8659be
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e742c6baa92403767b4ba8227f34fc7919db28e0
commit r11-11039-ge742c6baa92403767b4ba8227f34fc7919db28e0
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e20b1c711f70d8d251d45694c50c02e66a4d9f7b
commit r11-11036-ge20b1c711f70d8d251d45694c50c02e66a4d9f7b
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e6ce4031ce6eba3ea8b2b75bcacb869b591b92c
commit r11-11037-g5e6ce4031ce6eba3ea8b2b75bcacb869b591b92c
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99327
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ae7641a3e34dfb79f8538965b48e411d825b90f
commit r11-11034-g6ae7641a3e34dfb79f8538965b48e411d825b90f
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The sketches above are completely untested (and incorrect) but just
demonstrating the ideas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, testsuite-fail
Target Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.2.1
--- Comment #2 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard only defines sorting in terms of comparisons on "every iterator i
pointing to the sequence", which seems to preclude using a temporary object on
the stack that is outside the sequence.
That s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111671
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-04
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111668
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Target Milestone|14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111666
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Why not delay this "evaluate now" to gimplification time?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111691
Bug ID: 111691
Summary: [OpenMP][5.2] C/C++ handle 'omp declare
variant([base–name:]variant-name)' - i.e. with
'base-name'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111653
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
IMHO we should try harder to make -fchecking=2 _not_ generate different code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |14.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106201
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023, rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
>
> --- Comment #16 from Robin Dapp ---
> Confirming that it's the compilation of insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 111674, which changed state.
Bug 111674 Summary: [13/14 regression] Failure to finalize an allocatable
subobject of a non-finalizable type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111674
What|Removed
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
