https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95455
Egor Pugin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egor.pugin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109802
--- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Thanks for fixing it!
Would you mind showing which commit fixed this? I'm curious about it. I
searched in the git log, but nothing mentioned this bug number.
Now I can come to my original intent, whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90253
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114713
Bug ID: 114713
Summary: incorrect TBAA for struct with flexible array member
or GNU zero size
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114714
Bug ID: 114714
Summary: [RISC-V][RVV] ICE: insn does not satisfy its
constraints (postreload)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106820
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:62a0ef0d02cbb74cd865c1db2ecb7ca1b11f87cd
commit r14-9959-g62a0ef0d02cbb74cd865c1db2ecb7ca1b11f87cd
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114618
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=114618
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-14
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114393
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Welche ---
Thank you!
$ /usr/local/gcc/bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 14.0.1 20240414 (experimental)
$ ./readme_ex
0 1 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114656
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> > Fixed for GCC 14 so far
> It is simple patch, so backporting is OK after a week in mainline.
These are patches which I am backporting:
https://patchwork.sourceware
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56623
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51450
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
configure:18495: checking if gcc supports -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions
configure:18513: gcc -c -g -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions conftest.c >&5
cc1: warning: command-line option '-fno-rtti' is valid for C++/D/ObjC+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-netbsd
--- Comment #18 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note libgcc uses t-gthr-noweak to get the define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47292
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49375
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
ppl support was removed with r0-117618-g33ad93b9f4cb21 for GCC 4.8.0.
I Have not looked if ISL requires libstdc++ or is only statically linked yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32497
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Crosscomiling native sh3|(const_int INT_MIN) can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71646
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
sm_30 is definitely the min target for offloading for GCC to nvptx .
What I don't know if `nvidia geforce gt 430` support is still existant in cuda.
Maybe someone who knows the offloading support for Nvidia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71333
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114714
Li Pan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
--- Comment #1 from L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71559
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.thompson at nasa dot
gov
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71559
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.2.0, 7.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #17 from Hu Lin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Hu Lin from comment #11)
> > I think it doesn't mean that's not a bug with -ftrapv, it should preserve
> > all overflow traps. Because it doesn't work, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65672
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89950 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65672
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 89950 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65672
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I see Martin has argued both ways :).
Anyways I the issue is in reconstruct_complex_type (either
cp_reconstruct_complex_type in gcc/cp/decl2.cc or reconstruct_complex_type in
gcc/tree.cc).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113499
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Arthur Cohen from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> > > If I understood Arthur correctly, GCC/Rust is going to effec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114715
Bug ID: 114715
Summary: Gcov allocates branches to wrong row for nested
switches
Product: gcc
Version: 11.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
I have tested the following since that might confuse the redundant store
removal sanity checks. It bootstraps fine on x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu but
causes
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-36.c scan-tree-dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Hu Lin from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Hu Lin from comment #11)
> > > I think it doesn't mean that's not a bug with -ftrapv, it should preserve
39 matches
Mail list logo