https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Priour <priour.be at gmail dot com> --- Yes, has been fixed and regtested a week ago. However I was in vacation last week. I will submit it shortly. though I would prefer to perform another regtesting on a freshly pulled trunk first. Benjamin. On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:37 PM hp at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 > > --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #2) > > Yes sorry for the regression. I confirmed it myself too on > x86_64-linux-gnu. > > I wrote a fix immediately yesterday, and I am currently regtesting it. > > > > It is promising as I quickly ran the test only for the analyzer test > cases, > > all of them now are back to their expected behavior. > > > > I'm sending the patch as soon as the regtesting finishes, so probably > > tomorrow evening, as my keys on the compiler farm are not yet synced. > > Any news on this? I don't see anything posted to gcc-patches@ later than > 2023-06-09. > > If you have trouble testing the patch that you mention, please send it > anyway > with a message mentioning your troubles. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
