https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37830
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95351
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |[11/12 Regression]
|Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95351
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac96973150b3279fe157f160efd83995077c7590
commit r13-8420-gac96973150b3279fe157f160efd83995077c7590
Author: Andrew Pinski
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.cc b/gcc/cfgexpand.cc
index 0de299c62e3..92062378d8e 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.cc
+++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.cc
@@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ expand_stack_vars (bool (*pred) (size_t), class
stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter_foelsche at agilent dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111731
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111731
Thomas Neumann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57675|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao Liu ---
So the stack is like
--- stack top
-32
- (offset -32)
-64 (32 bytes redzone)
- (offset -64)
-128 (64 bytes __m512)
(offset -128)
(32-bytes redzone)
---(offset -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114314
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4bd9d097197334e786690ba1566ccf79396da730
commit r13-8419-g4bd9d097197334e786690ba1566ccf79396da730
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114314
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4e5789cede6974b6483c0f82069ff80b5a547e4
commit r14-9434-gc4e5789cede6974b6483c0f82069ff80b5a547e4
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57678
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57678&action=edit
testcase that fails all the way back to GCC 4.8.x
This one fails until GCC 4.8.1, works in GCC 4.7.4 but that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Note with the reduced testcase in comment #7, -fno-tree-vrp has no effect on
> it any more so it might make sense to do another bisection on that testcase.
I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57677
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57677&action=edit
Slightly more reduced
Removes the extra induction variables and manually unroll the inner loop.
What I am see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105456
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 105456, which changed state.
Bug 105456 Summary: Child I/O does not propage iostat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105456
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
Bug 105361 depends on bug 105456, which changed state.
Bug 105456 Summary: Child I/O does not propage iostat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105456
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-12
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114310
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2)
> !?! That doesn't make any sense to me Andrew. This is a failure to match
> the insn, not a constraint error. And given the existence of a zero
> register, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114310
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114315
Bug ID: 114315
Summary: Attributes should be diagnosed when placed in the
middle of declaration specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Thinking about this a little more.
((convert)boolean)*a is not Canonical
But `boolean?a:0` is. Due to one expression vs 2.
But `zero_one * a` is still Canonical if there is no cast from the boolean
type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #19 from Edwin Lu ---
While debugging, I found that this testcase also breaks on x86_64 when
optimizations are enabled (-O1 -> -O3).
Godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/ecs5MPds8
There may be other targets that fail as well. I haven't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |driver
Summary|[14 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114314
Bug ID: 114314
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE: in common_handle_option, at
opts.cc:3356 with -fno-multiflags
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105473
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #32)
> See PR114304 for an issue that was caused by the fix in comment 27.
Reverted portion of offending commit to fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:824a71f609b37a8121793075b175e2bbe14fdb82
commit r13-8417-g824a71f609b37a8121793075b175e2bbe14fdb82
Author: Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105437
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:824a71f609b37a8121793075b175e2bbe14fdb82
commit r13-8417-g824a71f609b37a8121793075b175e2bbe14fdb82
Author: Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105437
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c179654c3170749f3fb3232f2442fcbc99bffbb
commit r14-9432-g0c179654c3170749f3fb3232f2442fcbc99bffbb
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c179654c3170749f3fb3232f2442fcbc99bffbb
commit r14-9432-g0c179654c3170749f3fb3232f2442fcbc99bffbb
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109946
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 109946, which changed state.
Bug 109946 Summary: [c++modules] linker error undefined reference to `vtable
for std::bad_expected_access'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109946
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-linux-gnueabihf
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99573
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||unlvsur at live dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101093
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 101093, which changed state.
Bug 101093 Summary: C++20 Module ICE cannot define 'enum class
std::align_val_t' in different module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101093
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110826
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 57676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57676&action=edit
Proposed patch
This patch fixes the issue by reverting the troublesome hunk and regression
tests OK on x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 103754, which changed state.
Bug 103754 Summary: [11,12][ice][modules] import bits/stdc++.h and map
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103754
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 102525, which changed state.
Bug 102525 Summary: error: failed to read compiled module: Bad file data when
trying to use modules possible 98944 regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102525
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102525
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114311
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I saw this before ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114313
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114312
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110826
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114311
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
MSVC compiles it but Clang and EDG agree with GCC:
$ clang++ c.cc -std=c++2b
c.cc:12:22: error: non-type template argument is not a constant expression
return SymbolRefid_>{};
^~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111731
Thomas Neumann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57669|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 11.03.2024 um 20:03 schrieb jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Patch on comment #8 brea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114311
--- Comment #2 from Carlo Wood ---
I meant `constexpr Symbol x;` inside main - with the same error.
r14-9425-2024032226-g119f5ae0455-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240311 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch on comment #8 breaks all sorts of things. Not so obvious. I will try
reverting the original hunk from pr105473 and then work from there.
4-pc-linux-gnu-as --enable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-9425-2024032226-g119f5ae0455-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240311 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114311
Carlo Wood changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong "error: ‘this’ is not |Possibly wrong "error:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114311
Bug ID: 114311
Summary: wrong "error: ‘this’ is not a constant expression"
with consteval member function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Maybe it should have its own enable/disable and not tied to -Wattribute
> though.
Yes, -Wattributes is going to keep covering more and more different things
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to M Welinder from comment #0)
> The standard, quoted from
> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes/likely, clearly
> contemplates this case:
N.B. cppreference is not the standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109966
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
This looks like a failure of potential_prvalue_result_of to notice that there's
copy elision taking place (when initializing a field of the array arr).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114310
Bug ID: 114310
Summary: [aarch64] __sync_val_compare_and_swap fails on
__int128_t with newval = 0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also this works just fine to disable the warning around the unlikely:
#define push_warning _Pragma("GCC diagnostic push")
#define pop_warning _Pragma("GCC diagnostic pop")
#define disable_warning _Pragma("GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Multiply as a canonical form of a conditional move/zero seems fairly
non-obvious relative to a conditional expression.
But I don't mind going with consensus on a canonical form. After all we just
need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I think the warning is very much desirable. It is not an error, just a
> warning that the code does something weird.
Maybe it should have its own enable/disabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114307
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Note that it's clear from the .syntax markers that this is inline assembler
that's the source of the invalid instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114307
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-11
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Raphael M Zinsly from comment #3)
> Created attachment 57670 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> I created this patch using the approach Jeff mentioned, I tested and it
> fixes this bug.
As I menti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Speficially this email:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2018-November/511208.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2018-November/510776.html
```
Would you please consider an error diagnostics for situations written in
test4.C?
Such situation is then silently ignored in profile_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning was added when this attribute was added in r9-4186-g2674fa47de9ecf
and even added a testcase for this warning g++.dg/cpp2a/attr-likely4.C .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
--- Comment #1 from M Welinder ---
Created attachment 57672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57672&action=edit
Preprocessed source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Raphael M Zinsly from comment #3)
> Created attachment 57671 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> This is the same patch I posted in PR114277, it fixes this bug as well.
The question is which is mor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114309
Bug ID: 114309
Summary: Undesirable warning with [[unlikely]]
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113428
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26
--- Comment #3 from Raphael M Zinsly ---
Created attachment 57671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57671&action=edit
proposed patch
This is the same patch I posted in PR114277, it fixes this bug as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277
--- Comment #3 from Raphael M Zinsly ---
Created attachment 57670
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57670&action=edit
proposed patch
I created this patch using the approach Jeff mentioned, I tested and it fixes
this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114304
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
[For completeness: The LAPACK testsuite change Richard mentioned in comment 2
is
https://github.com/Reference-LAPACK/lapack/commit/64e8a7500d817869e5fcde35afd39af8bc7a8086
- That's for g95 and was applied 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114308
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC before 7 didn't support this feature:
Error: Assignment to an allocatable polymorphic variable at (1) is not yet
supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114198
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114261
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114198
--- Comment #3 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Fixed!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114195
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114308
Bug ID: 114308
Summary: ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2627
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114307
Bug ID: 114307
Summary: [ARM] GCC generates instruction that assembler rejects
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113428
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c27b30552e6cc789425d3628d294dafc5f3a0861
commit r14-9430-gc27b30552e6cc789425d3628d294dafc5f3a0861
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114295
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114295
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8410402272038aae7e4b2bd76df38607a78cad95
commit r14-9429-g8410402272038aae7e4b2bd76df38607a78cad95
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> > So I think we could solve this with a bit of help from the alias oracle. We
> > have the routine ptrs_comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111284
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 57648 [details]
> gcc14-pr111284.patch
>
> So, I've tried to fix this by constexpr evaluating the arguments passed to
> PARM_DECLs with TREE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109
--- Comment #18 from Rainer Orth ---
SPARC testsuite failures fixed for GCC 14.0.1.
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
