https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99754
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
Yes, __mm_set_epi32 will reverse order of parameters, Could you send out a
patch for review?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99761
Bug ID: 99761
Summary: Warn flag for non-kind specified mixing
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
Bug ID: 99763
Summary: c++filt crashes when demangling
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99762
Ba Jinsheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
--- Comment #1 from Ba Jinsheng ---
*** Bug 99762 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99755
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99762
Bug ID: 99762
Summary: c++filt crashes with specific inpu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96582
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a29124d28253cdf603ba1977db2f09c9f233fea5
commit r11-7822-ga29124d28253cdf603ba1977db2f09c9f233fea5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99746
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99764
Bug ID: 99764
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99765
Bug ID: 99765
Summary: Explicit dimension size declaration of pointer array
allowed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-25
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
Bug ID: 99766
Summary: ICE: unable to generate reloads with SVE code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99369
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c884ac1e743dbaaa5eea89ef95d5b987e66a28cb
commit r10-9542-gc884ac1e743dbaaa5eea89ef95d5b987e66a28cb
Author: Tobias Burnus
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99369
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
The above ICEs with just -O3 -march=armv8.2-a+sve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
--- Comment #3 from Ba Jinsheng ---
Created attachment 50471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50471&action=edit
the payload to trigger the crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
--- Comment #4 from Ba Jinsheng ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> We likely miss the payload, right?
Uploaded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Ba Jinsheng from comment #3)
> Created attachment 50471 [details]
> the payload to trigger the crash
Is it a valid symbol name? How did you come up with the name?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
--- Comment #6 from Ba Jinsheng ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Ba Jinsheng from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 50471 [details]
> > the payload to trigger the crash
>
> Is it a valid symbol name? How did you com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93660
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e34bdeaf3b9c294fa8a2b15d5efc866f377b264
commit r10-9543-g3e34bdeaf3b9c294fa8a2b15d5efc866f377b264
Author: Tobias Burnus
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #7 from M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99763
--- Comment #8 from Ba Jinsheng ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > I got this payload by fuzzing.
>
> I see. It's unlikely we'll fix such cases, the name is complete garbage.
Even it is an invalid symbol, the c++filt will crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99761
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99761
--- Comment #2 from Nick ---
Amazing, years of using gfortran and you still find useful flags!
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE: unable |[11 Regression] ICE: unable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
Bug ID: 99767
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in expand_direct_optab_fn, at
internal-fn.c:3360
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99686
--- Comment #3 from Steven Sun ---
@W E Brown: I got your idea. So are all uses like this ill-formed? This seems
unexpected for me. I would expect the complete specialization is full
specialization for both primary templates.
I also find facts t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99765
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-25
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99768
Bug ID: 99768
Summary: [11 Regression] Bogus -Wuninitialized diagnostic with
type punning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99765
--- Comment #2 from Nick ---
Thanks for finding that in the standard!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99734
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Lelyakin ---
Not reproduced anymore.
The first case has changed diagnostic to:
wrong number of template arguments (1, should be 2) [99274]
The second case has changed diagnostic to:
non-template type ‘rebind_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99555
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d99111fd8e12deffdd9a965ce17e8a760d531ec3
commit r11-7824-gd99111fd8e12deffdd9a965ce17e8a760d531ec3
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99758
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99769
Bug ID: 99769
Summary: [modules] internal compiler error: in tree_node, at
cp/module.cc:9105 when compile module partitions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99770
Bug ID: 99770
Summary: gcc gives warning being treated as error on arm
platform
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99758
--- Comment #2 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Started with r7-1850-ge4bbb037670323fbc578b6bc68cfb5252f1bf0cc:
>
> commit e4bbb037670323fbc578b6bc68cfb5252f1bf0cc
> Author: Wilco Dijkstra
> Date: Wed Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99770
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99770
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nishant Chauhan from comment #0)
> Is this a bug in gcc on arm?
No, the warning is correct. You are passing NULL where a size_t is expected.
That's probably a bug in your code, you should fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99686
--- Comment #4 from W E Brown ---
(In reply to Steven Sun from comment #3)
> I would expect the complete specialization is full
> specialization for both primary templates.
No, any given explicit or partial specialization can be a specializ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72982851d70dfbc547d83ed2bb45356b9ebe3ff0
commit r11-7825-g72982851d70dfbc547d83ed2bb45356b9ebe3ff0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Mar 23 20:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72982851d70dfbc547d83ed2bb45356b9ebe3ff0
commit r11-7825-g72982851d70dfbc547d83ed2bb45356b9ebe3ff0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Mar 23 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:660eb7e9dee46ef1c986d5a4fa5cbd182b435518
commit r11-7826-g660eb7e9dee46ef1c986d5a4fa5cbd182b435518
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |11.0
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
--- Comment #3 from Paul A. Voytas ---
I see what you mean--if i test for rand(0)=0.d0 I do get hist with gfortran on
the EL7 machine.
But it seems like there must still be something different from older versions.
The info pages for rand() say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] printf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-06 10:02:19 |2021-3-25
--- Comment #5 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41898
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly related (implementation-wise) are ideas to handle array element
contents field-sensitive but not elements, thus have for
T p[10];
fields for members of 'T' but re-use the appropriate member for ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99755
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
The fix was reverted by
commit de00a7bda94910835012bc7150be53b460a5c8b6
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Mar 25 06:57:37 2021 -0700
Revert "x86: Skip ISA check for always_inline in system headers"
This reve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90330
--- Comment #34 from Matt Thompson ---
Iain,
Apologies. I forgot about this. Seeing as I'm now using GNU 10.2.0 on my
Macbook...I guess it's working.
I currently do:
../gcc-10.2.0/configure --prefix=$HOME/installed/Core/gcc-gfortran/10.2.0
--e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19831
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
The original cases are all fixed but what remains is us failing to elide
void f ()
{
void *p = __builtin_malloc (1);
if (!p)
__builtin_abort ();
__builtin_free (p);
}
if that's even desirable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27039
Bug 27039 depends on bug 27214, which changed state.
Bug 27214 Summary: The C frontend introduces undefined pointer overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27214
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96582
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99751
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Maybe a nicer names:
$ cat pr99751.c
int *ptr1 = 0, **ptr2 = &ptr1;
int *identity(int *p)
{
return p;
}
void store_to_c(int *p)
{
*ptr2 = identity(p);
}
int main()
{
int f;
store_to_c(&f);
if (pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #2)
> The above ICEs with just -O3 -march=armv8.2-a+sve.
Thank you for reporting. I reproduced it тоо. I think соме constraint was not
categorized rightly. It might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
Bug ID: 99771
Summary: Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99447
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
@doko: Can you please reduce objects and then .ii files needed to reproduce the
issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99767
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. as
int a[1024], b[1024];
void
foo (void)
{
#pragma omp simd
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
if (b[i] > 23) {
a[i] = b[i] + 1;
int v = 1 / 0;
}
}
(omp simd is there only to convinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Stam Markianos-Wright
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aac12084fc07319d5c8232c51dafa4e297bd5415
commit r11-7830-gaac12084fc07319d5c8232c51dafa4e297bd5415
Author: Stam Markianos-W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Stam Markianos-Wright
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1b4d742f180ff6f1e538e79e590065afe2cce6e
commit r10-9545-ga1b4d742f180ff6f1e538e79e590065afe2cce6e
Author: Stam Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99765
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99764
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I did not know whether it is implementable (in VSX or in Altivec) for 32-bit
targets etc., all I was suggesting was what to do if it is not implementable.
If it is implementable, somebody familiar with VSX/Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98942
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 98942, which changed state.
Bug 98942 Summary: [C++23] Implement P1102R2 - Down with ()!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98942
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99565
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-25
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99772
Bug ID: 99772
Summary: New built-ins for pointer comparisons that yield a
total order
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
Bug ID: 99773
Summary: ARM v8.1-m MVE interaction with -mfloat-abi not clear
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I did not know whether it is implementable (in VSX or in Altivec) for 32-bit
> targets etc., all I was suggesting was what to do if it is not implementable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
Xionghu, please do not write "can't" when you mean "it's difficult" or "it
hasn't been implemented" or "it's too inefficient" (such as moving the data
through memory). Please be very precise in your explana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard should use the VFP registers for
passing any FP arguments so the build attribute for Tag_ABI_VFP_args should be
set to show that.
It's true that soft-float routi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99718
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567215.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:52:53PM +, pvoytas at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
>
> --- Comment #3 from Paul A. Voytas ---
> I see what you mean--if i test for r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33802
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 33802, which changed state.
Bug 33802 Summary: bogus "is used uninitialized" (VOPs) (inlining)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33802
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99773
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
I tried changing TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_SUB in arm.h to:
#define TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_SUB (arm_float_abi != ARM_FLOAT_ABI_SOFT\
&& (bitmap_bit_p (arm_active_target.isa, \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36823
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Bisection shows the -Wuninitialized at -O2 disappeared between r176911 and
r176920. The likely candidate is r176918.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95622
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
I am not sure whether this is a sensible solution, but it fixes
the issue for c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-alias-ipa-pta-2.c ...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
index 529e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774
Bug ID: 99774
Summary: False positive from -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak in loop
(qemu:libvhost-user.c)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
