[Bug ipa/115815] New: ICE: in purge_all_uses, at ipa-param-manipulation.cc:632 with -O2 -flto and attribute destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115815 Bug ID: 115815 Summary: ICE: in purge_all_uses, at ipa-param-manipulation.cc:632 with -O2 -flto and attribute destructor Product: gcc Version: 15.0 S

[Bug c++/99926] Parameter packs and variadic arguments: Clang, gcc, and msvc differ on this one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99926 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed. Same reading as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102928#c1 really.

[Bug c++/99926] Parameter packs and variadic arguments: Clang, gcc, and msvc differ on this one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99926 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-07-07 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/115814] variadic template class deduction failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115814 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/115801] [modules] segfault instantiating a template with a templated friend declaration referring to an unexported template using a qualified name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115801 Nathaniel Shead changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org Last reco

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you provide the exact version of gcc you are using? The trunk works correctly.

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|1 |0 Status|NEW

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |--- Status

[Bug c++/115814] New: class template argument deduction failed in C++20

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115814 Bug ID: 115814 Summary: class template argument deduction failed in C++20 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug tree-optimization/115813] missing constant evaluation for vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115813 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #2) > Is that the right pattern for the example? It looks different Yes I am positive it is the right one. I double checked even GCC 14.1.0 and 13.3.0. > > Enabling mat

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|WAITING

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 --- Comment #7 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Can you show the exact command needed to reproduce this? > > I am suspecting this might be an artifact of the IDE you are using. > > What GCC

[Bug tree-optimization/115813] missing constant evaluation for vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115813 --- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen --- Is that the right pattern for the example? It looks different Enabling match.pd debugging for the scalar version shows: taddbit.c.034t.ccp1:Applying pattern match.pd:3960, gimple-match.cc:18437 taddbit.c.034t

[Bug c++/115811] gcc breaks and cannot parse code with templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115811 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you show the exact command needed to reproduce this? I am suspecting this might be an artifact of the IDE you are using. What GCC diagnostic produces is (when I remove the line markers): t.cc: In insta

[Bug tree-optimization/115813] missing constant evaluation for vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115813 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID St

[Bug c++/65608] [meta-bug] friend issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608 Bug 65608 depends on bug 115808, which changed state. Bug 115808 Summary: Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/115813] missing constant evaluation for vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115813 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Severity|

[Bug c++/115798] [15 Regression][modules] ICE when re-exporting a type exported from base module's GMF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115798 Nathaniel Shead changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/115813] New: missing constant evaluation for vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115813 Bug ID: 115813 Summary: missing constant evaluation for vectors Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-opt

[Bug c/112833] Missing warnings on restrict misuse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112833 --- Comment #5 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #4) > Mind filing another bug with that? Thanks. I found . It resulted in adding -Wanalyzer-overlapping-buffers,

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to linuxnyasha from comment #6) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > > (In reply to linuxnyasha from comment #2) > > > On clang works > > > > But 2 out of 3 compilers have the same erro

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 --- Comment #6 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > (In reply to linuxnyasha from comment #2) > > On clang works > > But 2 out of 3 compilers have the same error message which might mean this > i

[Bug c/112833] Missing warnings on restrict misuse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112833 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 fr

[Bug c++/115811] gcc breaks and cannot parse code with templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115811 --- Comment #3 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- Created attachment 58603 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58603&action=edit Preprocessed file

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 --- Comment #5 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- Created attachment 58602 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58602&action=edit Preprocessed file

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to linuxnyasha from comment #3) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > Can you provide the preprocessed source? > > https://transfiles.ru/zjfer This is not attached. I should have writ

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to linuxnyasha from comment #2) > On clang works But 2 out of 3 compilers have the same error message which might mean this is not valid code. with and without optimizations in GCC in this case us

[Bug sanitizer/115812] New: [12/13 Regression] FPE on unknown address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115812 Bug ID: 115812 Summary: [12/13 Regression] FPE on unknown address check missing Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug c++/104255] parsing function signature fails when it uses a function parameter outside of an unevaluated context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104255 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- Com

[Bug c++/115809] paramater packed of function argument inside decltype of trailing return type is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115809 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/115783] GCC accepts invalid program involving calling explicit object member function from static member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115783 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 --- Comment #4 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > MSVC rejects this code: > ``` > (46): error C3779: 'utempl::loopholes::Magic': a function that > returns 'auto' cannot be used before it is defi

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 --- Comment #3 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > MSVC rejects this code: > ``` > (46): error C3779: 'utempl::loopholes::Magic': a function that > returns 'auto' cannot be used before it is defi

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 --- Comment #2 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > MSVC rejects this code: > ``` > (46): error C3779: 'utempl::loopholes::Magic': a function that > returns 'auto' cannot be used before it is defi

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 --- Comment #3 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Can you provide the preprocessed source? https://transfiles.ru/zjfer

[Bug c++/115811] gcc breaks and cannot parse code with templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115811 --- Comment #2 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Can you provide the preprocessed source? https://transfiles.ru/zjfer

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 --- Comment #2 from linuxnyasha at tutanota dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Can you provide the preprocessed source? https://transfiles.ru/zjfer

[Bug c++/115808] Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- MSVC rejects this code: ``` (46): error C3779: 'utempl::loopholes::Magic': a function that returns 'auto' cannot be used before it is defined (6): note: see declaration of 'utempl::loopholes::Magic' (46): er

[Bug c++/115810] Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-07-06 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug c++/115811] gcc breaks and cannot parse code with templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115811 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-07-06 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/115809] paramater packed of function argument inside decltype of trailing return type is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115809 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Gcc can't parse code where |paramater packed of |

[Bug c++/115809] Gcc can't parse code where the decltype is written, which depends on the runtime arguments passed to the function.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115809 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|UNCONF

[Bug c++/115811] New: gcc breaks and cannot parse code with templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115811 Bug ID: 115811 Summary: gcc breaks and cannot parse code with templates Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c++/115810] New: Strange warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115810 Bug ID: 115810 Summary: Strange warning messages Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug libstdc++/115807] C++23 P0943R6 does't qualify std::atomic in #define _Atomic properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115807 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/115807] C++23 P0943R6 does't qualify std::atomic in #define _Atomic properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115807 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-07-06 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug c++/115809] New: Gcc can't parse code where the decltype is written, which depends on the runtime arguments passed to the function.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115809 Bug ID: 115809 Summary: Gcc can't parse code where the decltype is written, which depends on the runtime arguments passed to the function. Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c++/115808] New: Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115808 Bug ID: 115808 Summary: Different behavior with optimizations enabled and disabled. Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/112833] Missing warnings on restrict misuse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112833 --- Comment #3 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #2) > Does the analyser have any sort of restrict checks? AFAIK it doesn't. I guess that's a bug (or wishlist) in itself. The `restrict` qualifier is all about data

[Bug libstdc++/115797] [15 Regression] 'extern "C" { #include }' fails with 'error: template with C linkage' since r15-1857-gde19b516edbf91

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115797 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/115797] [15 Regression] 'extern "C" { #include }' fails with 'error: template with C linkage' since r15-1857-gde19b516edbf91

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115797 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dcc735aaeae1cc985a143ade883db748fb10554d commit r15-1875-gdcc735aaeae1cc985a143ade883db748fb10554d Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug target/78275] [avr] at43usb320 in wrong multilib set.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78275 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/54071] out data in object file is correct only for -s0 optimize flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54071 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/115799] ranges::find's optimized branching for memchr is not quite right

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115799 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- It does, but can't use if-constexpr in c++98 mode.

[Bug target/115591] internal error on global variable-length array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.2 Status|NEW

[Bug target/115591] internal error on global variable-length array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591 --- Comment #12 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c5ef4944e3858e7daf1ef75a3afa93a3ece37c5 commit r14-10385-g6c5ef4944e3858e7daf1ef75a3afa93a3ece37c5 Author: Eric Botcazou

[Bug libstdc++/115807] New: C++23 P0943R6 does't qualify std::atomic in #define _Atomic properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115807 Bug ID: 115807 Summary: C++23 P0943R6 does't qualify std::atomic in #define _Atomic properly Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/115806] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] No error for member enum redefinition in class template (even after instantiation)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115806 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/115802] Non-atomic load of static variable moved out of loop despite atomic fences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115802 --- Comment #9 from Ivan Bodrov --- Created attachment 58598 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58598&action=edit Minimal program to reproduce the issue (no condvar) To further simplify the original code, the condition variabl

[Bug middle-end/115802] Non-atomic load of static variable moved out of loop despite atomic fences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115802 --- Comment #8 from Ivan Bodrov --- The 2nd example is only intended to show changes in code generation after the fence is moved to the function that is visible, but is not inlined, which is the cause of this issue. The code is not supposed to

[Bug c++/115806] New: No error for enum redefinition in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115806 Bug ID: 115806 Summary: No error for enum redefinition in template Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug middle-end/115802] Non-atomic load of static variable moved out of loop despite atomic fences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115802 --- Comment #7 from Phosit --- Yes you are right. There is a race because of the first access. But your example also does that > while (!var) > fence(); ... Whatever, there is certainly is a bug.

[Bug middle-end/115805] New: 436.cactusADM and 507.cactuBSSN_r miscompilation with -O2 generic -flto and some hardening options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115805 Bug ID: 115805 Summary: 436.cactusADM and 507.cactuBSSN_r miscompilation with -O2 generic -flto and some hardening options Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/115802] Non-atomic load of static variable moved out of loop despite atomic fences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115802 --- Comment #6 from Ivan Bodrov --- Created attachment 58597 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58597&action=edit Smaller, but non runnable example. Full demo code for the above (can't be run, only shows code generation). Can

[Bug middle-end/115802] Non-atomic load of static variable moved out of loop despite atomic fences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115802 --- Comment #5 from Ivan Bodrov --- Without the mutex threads would race for the first access to non-atomic variable. Seq-Cst ordering is only used to simplify the example, it can be relaxed to acquire/release/relaxed for different operations.

[Bug target/115789] gcc miscompile itself with CFLAGS -O3 -march=rv64gcv_zvl256b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115789 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- My suggestion is to wait for the LLVM release, then backport whatever we need to be compatible with LLVM.

[Bug target/115591] internal error on global variable-length array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- No objections at all. Go for it whenever it's convenient for you.

[Bug testsuite/52641] Test cases fail for 16-bit int targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641 --- Comment #26 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb16e3179e79e4307f1d834a02e63d0dfd817f67 commit r15-1873-gbb16e3179e79e4307f1d834a02e63d0dfd817f67 Author: Georg-Johann Lay Dat

[Bug middle-end/115802] Non-atomic load of static variable moved out of loop despite atomic fences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115802 Phosit changed: What|Removed |Added CC||phosit at autistici dot org --- Comment #4 fro

[Bug target/115591] internal error on global variable-length array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591 --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- Thanks Jeff! Any objection to backporting the fix onto the 14 branch?

[Bug target/115591] internal error on global variable-length array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591 --- Comment #9 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8bc5561c43b195e1638e5acace8b41b3f7512be3 commit r15-1870-g8bc5561c43b195e1638e5acace8b41b3f7512be3 Author: Eric Botcazou Date: S

[Bug libstdc++/115799] ranges::find's optimized branching for memchr is not quite right

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115799 --- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #2) > I also get an ICE related: > > /opt/buildAgent/temp/buildTmp/toolchain/include/c++/15.0.0/bits/stl_algo.h: > 3873:38: error: no match for 'operator+' (operand types are

[Bug libstdc++/115799] ranges::find's optimized branching for memchr is not quite right

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115799 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug target/115800] PowerPC GCC cannot build a little endian compile if --with-cpu=power5 is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115800 --- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab --- It is generally assumed that powerpc64le-*-* implies POWER7+ (glibc even requires POWER8+). This is independent of the older -mlittle support (which doesn't have a separate config triple).

[Bug modula2/115804] ICE during gimplification with new isfinite optab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115804 --- Comment #4 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus --- Breakpoint 12, gimplify_stmt (stmt_p=0x3fff76306c0, seq_p=0x3ff7f50) at /devel/src/gcc/gimplify.cc:7590 7590 last = gimple_seq_last (*seq_p); (gdb) call debug(*stmt_p) { a = 1.0e+0;

[Bug target/115794] gcc 15 (20240630 snapshot) ICEs while building gfortran while targeting rv64gcv_zvl256b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115794 --- Comment #2 from lu_zero at gentoo dot org --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #1) > Please try to reduce it with cvise > (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GCC_ICE_reporting_guide). I'm trying to sort out few other issues, once I'm done I'll