https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98775
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
A quick check comparing GCC 10 to GCC 11 shows an improvement from 3.5s to 2.7s
on a Zen2 machine (with -march=native).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98744
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Jason, is it possible a wrong constructor is emitted to the IL?
>
Thank you Martin for the analysis. That explains why the bisection point to
Jason's revision.
@Jason: Can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96431
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 98625, which changed state.
Bug 98625 Summary: UBSAN: gcc/cp/module.cc:977:15: runtime error: left shift of
negative value -1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98777
Bug ID: 98777
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in update_equiv at
gcc/lra-constraints.c:504 since
r11-6819-g4334b52427420312
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98777
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98778
Bug ID: 98778
Summary: asm() accepts certain "i" (symbol) constructs despite
-fpie for x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97299
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50017
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50017&action=edit
patch
OK, so the arm fails are because they use load_lanes. Which means adjusting
like
/* { dg-final { scan-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97299
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
> Created attachment 50017
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50017&action=edit
> patch
[...]
> Rainer, can you test the atta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
How about allocating memory by other means (brk/mmap) instead? That is, run
your own simple allocator? I suppose gcov never frees things (until the end)
so it could be quite simple one? And fall back to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98241
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8afef308b49c9d8dfe38fab7bbb5f6bb070b093d
commit r11-6830-g8afef308b49c9d8dfe38fab7bbb5f6bb070b093d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98241
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] GCC |GCC produces incorrect code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94080
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Let's see, with patches from late last year, can this be closed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97299
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f46a40112caa7e039d949beda94386ff4e436a35
commit r11-6831-gf46a40112caa7e039d949beda94386ff4e436a35
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97299
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eaf883710c0039eca5caea5115e848adb4ab67bd
commit r11-6832-geaf883710c0039eca5caea5115e848adb4ab67bd
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98078
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Actually no, that would be papering over a bigger problem. After looking at
the issue a bit more, I proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563962.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98779
Bug ID: 98779
Summary: [arm] libgcc incompatible with -mpure-code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98780
Bug ID: 98780
Summary: Missing line table entry for inlined stmt at -g -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98750
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98744
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98780
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
At final, we have:
...
(note 113 30 112 2 0x7f53d1836de0 NOTE_INSN_BLOCK_BEG)
(note 112 113 31 2 0x7f53d1836e40 NOTE_INSN_BLOCK_BEG)
(call_insn 31 112 114 2 (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:DI ("bar") [flags 0x41]
)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98694
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Fixed on trunk, latent on the branch(es) where we don't have a testcase(?)
Yes, not sure about the backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98772
--- Comment #2 from Joel Hutton ---
Yes, it is aarch64, I have updated the field.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98781
Bug ID: 98781
Summary: Poor std::hash for bitset and vector
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98781
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98335
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So I think we want to improve that
+ /* If more than a word remains, then make sure to keep the
+ starting point at least word aligned. */
+ if (last_live - first_live > UNITS_PER_WORD)
+*trim_head
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92095
Romain Naour changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.naour at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98731
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x-linux-gnu |s390x-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98778
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In particular it is up to the inline asm writer to ensure that the result is
PIC compatible through a wise choice of constraints etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I haven't seen the patch posted to gcc-patches, have I missed it?
Patch review should happen there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Martin, can you please have a look? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97960
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97627
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Still broken on current 10 branch, as written works fine on the trunk due to
the C++ FE loop changes.
Bin, did you have time to look into this yet?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97627
--- Comment #9 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Still broken on current 10 branch, as written works fine on the trunk due to
> the C++ FE loop changes.
> Bin, did you have time to look into this yet?
I am very sor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98778
--- Comment #3 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> In particular it is up to the inline asm writer to ensure that the result is
> PIC compatible through a wise choice of constraints etc.
Perhaps the des
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
So SRA sees statements:
n[0][2] = "\t\x02\b";
and later
_11 = n[0][3][4294967294];
The latter loads a scalar sitting inside what the store above
initialized (according to get_ref_base_and_extent) and so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e18f4bbd8318db1e606f7092a224e4bb21a8a26
commit r9-9193-g1e18f4bbd8318db1e606f7092a224e4bb21a8a26
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The return n[0][3][-2U]; access is UB in the program, so if it would be
reached, it can do anything, but the important thing is that it is guarded with
while (g)
where g is always 0 during the exection of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98530
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c1cf7350bff6ba03faaa61b44d74bf8a06c6543
commit r11-6834-g3c1cf7350bff6ba03faaa61b44d74bf8a06c6543
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98530
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98738
--- Comment #9 from Kwok Yeung ---
I have a patch for this now. In addition to posting other semaphores in
omp_fulfill_event, GOMP_taskwait also needs to be made aware of detached tasks.
Also, task_running_count should not include completed tasks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 98624, which changed state.
Bug 98624 Summary: UBSAN: gcc/cp/module.cc:5895:29: runtime error: member call
on null pointer of type 'struct module_state'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98738
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've been wondering whether it wouldn't be best to pass through
omp_eventhandle_t the pointer to the gomp_task rather than some particular
semaphore and in omp_fulfill_event then decide based on that task,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98772
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
But the issue seems to be
t.c:3:22: note: ==> examining statement: _34 = *pix1_19;
t.c:3:22: missed: permutation requires at least three vectors _34 = *pix1_19;
t.c:3:22: missed: unsupported load perm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96372
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrea Corallo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0568f801effcea6f4e066c40bc346513d6b946c5
commit r11-6836-g0568f801effcea6f4e066c40bc346513d6b946c5
Author: Andrea Corallo
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98348
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> I haven't seen the patch posted to gcc-patches, have I missed it?
> Patch review should happen there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/5629
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98773
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Right, the issue is that SRA depends on get_ref_base_and_extent to figure out
what is being accessed (and so whether it is safe) and that function believes
the load is safely from within the array.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
get_ref_base_and_extent is not the right API to check for the UBs caused by out
of bounds accesses, tree_could_trap_p is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Even our constant folding thinks the unsigned expression wraps around. If I
tell SRA to fold the expression if the base is a string_cst, the invalid
dereference is avoided. My experiment was (I am not propo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
503 poly_offset_int woffset
504 = wi::sext (wi::to_poly_offset (index)
505 - wi::to_poly_offset (low_bound),
506
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> 503 poly_offset_int woffset
> 504 = wi::sext (wi::to_poly_offset (index)
> 505 - wi::to_pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, adding an additional check whether tree_could_trap_p is of course easy.
I'll wait a little while if the discussion about get_ref_base_and_extent
perhaps leads to a different solution but if not, I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > 503 poly_offset_int woffset
> > 504 = wi::sext (wi::to_poly_offset (index)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
Bug ID: 98782
Summary: IRA artificially creating spills due to BB frequencies
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98697
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Why would this be different from right shift, where we don't miss the
optimization?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98783
Bug ID: 98783
Summary: Wrong ouput of "-O3 -Q --help=optimizers" on gcc
built with --enable-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98325
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98730
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What happened to that patch series? Has it been committed without showing it
up in the PR, something else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98689
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |[11 Regression] FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98772
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98730
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
At expand time, we have:
(insn 13 12 14 2 (set (reg:V2SI 121 [ _11 ])
(neg:V2SI (eq:V2SI (subreg:V2SI (reg:DI 116 [ _6 ]) 0)
(subreg:V2SI (reg:DI 118 [ _8 ]) 0 "arm_neon.h":2404:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98255
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50021
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50021&action=edit
gcc11-pr98255.patch
The full patch would be I think this. Am going to bootstrap/regtest it just to
see what i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92095
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> This patch produce a regression on sparcv8 SS10 platform.
>
> In Buildroot we have a defconfig qemu_sparc_ss10_defconfig that was working
> (booting) with gcc 7.4, 8.3 and 9.2. But it doesn't boot anymore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98672
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fb7aa205afebe178c06683037ccd4c41104337a
commit r11-6840-g0fb7aa205afebe178c06683037ccd4c41104337a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98672
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk. I think we need to backport this at least to 10.3
eventually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97981
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 50022
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50022&action=edit
reduced testcase, this is not solaris-specific, but solaris happened to tickle
it uniquely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98730
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Hmm, yeah, looks like it might be a cost issue then.
arm_rtx_costs_internal seems to give CONST_VECTOR
a cost of 1 or 4 instructions, whereas a zero CONST_VECTOR
is free in this context.
Altho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9569046bd8ba2671833d600b3bdbdb7de593873
commit r8-10736-gc9569046bd8ba2671833d600b3bdbdb7de593873
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97742
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98573
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7944753fad501194eb8a828d6b74270e79d14a4d
commit r11-6841-g7944753fad501194eb8a828d6b74270e79d14a4d
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 98624, which changed state.
Bug 98624 Summary: UBSAN: gcc/cp/module.cc:5895:29: runtime error: member call
on null pointer of type 'struct module_state'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90248
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50024&action=edit
gcc11-pr90248.patch
So, I think at minimum we want this, i.e. turn the bogus simplifications into
simplificati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98573
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98783
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71879
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f645da0e4ab9438dfd0c047c710c7ec6a7d6d8f3
commit r11-6842-gf645da0e4ab9438dfd0c047c710c7ec6a7d6d8f3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71879
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96623
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
And an extended test to check that various variables are in scope:
constexpr int x = 0;
struct A {
int a1;
void foo (int p) {
int foovar;
struct B {
int b1;
void bar1 () noexcept(x);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98777
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this. I've reproduced the bug on riscv64 and started to
work on fixing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96963
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96863
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
