https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102233
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100518
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Alexander: Can you please take a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102154
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64-linux-gnu |ppc64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
CD1 was a C++0x draft:
"CD1: A DR issue not resolved in TC1 but included in Committee Draft 1. CD1 was
advanced for balloting at the September, 2008 WG21 meeting."
DR 613 was resolved by N2253, which was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102228
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I do have a functional patch which improves the -fsyntax-only compile-time for
the PR101555 testcase from 14s to 2s.
After lookup_anon_field is gone PR83309 pops up of course:
Samples: 6K of event 'cycles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7b626d98a9a821ffb33466818d6aa86cac1d6fd
commit r12-3413-ga7b626d98a9a821ffb33466818d6aa86cac1d6fd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 regession] |[9/10/11 regession] wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 102227, which changed state.
Bug 102227 Summary: [12 Regression] Likely wrong code since
r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> After r12-3413-ga7b626d98a9a821ffb33466818d6aa86cac1d6fd, I still see the
> miscompilation in the mentioned file.
>
> @Jakub: Can one somehow bisect which XORSIG
+ vmovq %xmm1, %rax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE15:
.size foo_v8di_7, .-foo_v8di_7
- .ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20210907 (experimental)"
+ .ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.0 20210908 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because a user-provided inner() means it's default constructible, period. If
that default constructor happens to be ill-formed, that's your problem and is
outside the immediate context that is checked by i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B AddressSanitizer will diagnose this at runtime.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #0)
> Normally life-extension would kick in, but because we added an unnecessary
> static_cast, it does not kick in and v is a dangling reference.
I assume you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101263
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> We might first need to implement P2231 (for constexpr optional) before this
> function can be properly constexpr.
I have a patch for that, but it's not upstre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96135
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note on the trunk for f and g at -O3 -msse4 (and -O3 on aarch64), GCC produces:
_21 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(i_2(D));
_22 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_21, _21, { 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 }>;
_18 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(_22);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96135
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Note on the trunk for f and g at -O3 -msse4 (and -O3 on aarch64), GCC
> produces:
> _21 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(i_2(D));
> _22 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_21, _21, { 7, 6,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 46391, which changed state.
Bug 46391 Summary: false dependencies are computed after vectorization (#2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46391
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101548
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
Bug ID: 102239
Summary: powerpc suboptimal boolean test of contiguous bits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7485a52551d71db2e8bbfc4c484196bcc321a1cd
commit r12-3417-g7485a52551d71db2e8bbfc4c484196bcc321a1cd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 102227, which changed state.
Bug 102227 Summary: [12 Regression] Likely wrong code since
r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102240
Bug ID: 102240
Summary: [F03] derived type parameter does not shadow variable
name in enclosing scope
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86e6268cff328e27ee6f90e2afc35b6f437a25cd
commit r12-3418-g86e6268cff328e27ee6f90e2afc35b6f437a25cd
Author: Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Martin, maybe you can try moving late sink to before the last phiopt pass.
If you mean the following then unfortunately that has not helped.
diff --git a/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145
--- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com ---
1) The gfortran manual has its own entries for -pedantic and -pedantic-errors:
-Wpedantic
-pedantic
Issue warnings for uses of extensions to Fortran. -pedantic also
applies to C-langua
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221
--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hi,
Thanks for the analysis!
That basically allows me to reduce the testcase to something as simple as a
swap:
#include
#include
#if defined(SMART)
using ptr = std::unique_ptr;
#else
using ptr = i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102241
Bug ID: 102241
Summary: ICE when declaring derived type with a parameterized
derived type member
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102228
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:716a5836928ee6d8fb884d9a2fbc1b1386ec8994
commit r12-3421-g716a5836928ee6d8fb884d9a2fbc1b1386ec8994
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102228
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101874
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:14:26PM +, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145
>
> --- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com ---
> 1) The gfortran manual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102154
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15)
> as discussed in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/578437.html, allow
> specific float-int subreg seems weird.
Indiscriminately allowi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102240
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-08
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb5690b8d2ce84fb943535bea0d587863cf57753
commit r11-8973-gcb5690b8d2ce84fb943535bea0d587863cf57753
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 regession] wrong |[9/10 regession] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e66b9f6779f46433b0e2c093b58403604ed131cc
commit r12-3422-ge66b9f6779f46433b0e2c093b58403604ed131cc
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242
Bug ID: 102242
Summary: [11 regression] analyzer/engine.cc built with clang:
/usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:346:5: error: no member
named 'fancy_abort'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
--- Comment #6 from Federico Kircheis ---
> are you expecting this to go under an existing warning flag, or a new one?
Ideally -Wall, but there might already be some flags related to dangling
pointers and references.
> Your compiler explorer l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102243
Bug ID: 102243
Summary: ice in get_range_query
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102243
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in get_range_query |[12 Regression] ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102243
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect r12-3300-gece28da924dd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #2)
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the analysis!
>
> That basically allows me to reduce the testcase to something as simple as a
> swap:
Yes. The actual swaps done by s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97589
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #28 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This comes from the construction of a local unique_ptr variable in:
>
> template
> _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
> void
> __unguarded_linear_insert(_Ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7)
> > This regresses okay.
>
> Still does. Shall I submit it for review, commit for you, or let it bit-rot?
If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244
Bug ID: 102244
Summary: Arc: Error: operand out of range (0x1036
is not between 0xf000 and
0x0fff)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244
--- Comment #1 from Giulio Benetti ---
Created attachment 51426
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51426&action=edit
Pre-processed hb-ot-shape-complex-use.cpp(hb-ot-shape-complex-use.ii)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244
--- Comment #2 from Giulio Benetti ---
Created attachment 51427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51427&action=edit
Pre-processed hb-ot-shape-complex-use.cpp(hb-ot-shape-complex-use.s)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #6)
> That's true, but if you look at the assembly there is no function call to
> std::move,
There is though, on line 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c64582372cf445eabc4f9e99def7e33fb0270ee
commit r12-3423-g3c64582372cf445eabc4f9e99def7e33fb0270ee
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245
Bug ID: 102245
Summary: false int-in-bool-context warning with shift
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should mention this was reduced from drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v6_0.c in
the Linux kernel compiling for arm-linux-gnueabi but can reproduce the warning
on x86_64 with -m32 option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
So this is a regression only on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Summary|false int-in-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-08
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242
--- Comment #3 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> Sorry about the breakage.
That's what my nightly testers are here for to catch. :)
> I think I need to #define INCLUDE_UNIQUE_PTR before including system.h,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, seems the binary context is result of shorten_binary_op, we see the
1L and (((int)x) << 0) operands of BIT_AND_EXPR, result_type is therefore long
int and shorten_binary_op uses convert to convert that (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102246
Bug ID: 102246
Summary: [11 Regression] libgomp build broken on
hppa64-hp-hpux*
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102246
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is no reason why 64-bit target couldn't support 128-bit ints, and they
are really required here. The OpenMP standards requires a Fortran kind for
this and we need pointer + extra info.
So, if 128-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 102246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102247
Bug ID: 102247
Summary: Overload resolution with brace-init is ambiguous when
it shouldn't be
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102247
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this the same case as in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849#c5 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7b2e9bd1a3cdb502bfd837d56ef809817ef0db7
commit r11-8974-gd7b2e9bd1a3cdb502bfd837d56ef809817ef0db7
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9f52acb7dc74fb7b4591f98d81cdcf54b36df38
commit r10-10102-gb9f52acb7dc74fb7b4591f98d81cdcf54b36df38
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102248
Bug ID: 102248
Summary: -Wstringop-overflow false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03b8e26897fbddec10a703cf518280af675e6458
commit r9-9715-g03b8e26897fbddec10a703cf518280af675e6458
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96963
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eugene.chereshnev at intel dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40363
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44553
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60eec23b5eda0f350e572586eee738eab0804a74
commit r12-3425-g60eec23b5eda0f350e572586eee738eab0804a74
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Sep 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101059
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f323c712ea76cc4506b03895e9b991e4e4b2baf
commit r12-3426-g8f323c712ea76cc4506b03895e9b991e4e4b2baf
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101059
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102249
Bug ID: 102249
Summary: Can't compare pointer to functions during constant
evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Bernd E. analyzed this in the thread referenced in c#1.
The test links staticly and we're pulling in the weak definition of
pthread_join.
I'm not sure why we're linking statically. Reverting to normal dy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102250
Bug ID: 102250
Summary: [11/12 Regression] python is not documented as a
Prerequisite for building for riscv
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102250
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
CC|
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
