https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106101
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andreas Krebbel
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1357577e6e39430869e294f94c2c547717b960f
commit r12-9058-ge1357577e6e39430869e294f94c2c547717b960f
Author: Andreas Kreb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108489
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #20 from David Ledger ---
Yeah, your right. I had noticed the mistake and reduced the code without
thinking enough:
```CPP
#include
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;
struct overaligned { alignas(128) char padding[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108491
Bug ID: 108491
Summary: cross compiler does not work: cc1: error:
‘-msecure-plt’ not supported by your assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108462
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so besides the relocation issue it seems that search paths (or install
paths) are wrong (because of my changes?). Configuring with
--prefix=/tmp/install and doing
> /tmp/install/bin/gm2 -fiso coroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108462
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so after fixing that I see
/tmp/install/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.1/collect2 -plugin
/tmp/install/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.1/liblto_plugin.so
-plugin-opt=/tmp/install/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47465fff9738b08796f4b52570fec49bbdbf3e57
commit r13-5288-g47465fff9738b08796f4b52570fec49bbdbf3e57
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107950
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> So moving range_label_for_type_mismatch *and* binary_op_rich_location to
> c/cp/c-family might be a fix for this; I'm not sure.
I don't think so as any other (non-C family) FE will fail to link against
li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad4f8c4e375dd7603382ed3ff95bd184e1959918
commit r13-5300-gad4f8c4e375dd7603382ed3ff95bd184e1959918
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108492
Bug ID: 108492
Summary: __analyzer_eval has effect on the analysis result of
gcc static analyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108135
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
--- Comment #33 from Bill Zissimopoulos ---
Now that we have a potential patch what are the steps to get it included into
the gcc codebase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108494
Bug ID: 108494
Summary: Slow thread creation with nested loops in GFortran
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
--- Comment #34 from niXman ---
(In reply to Bill Zissimopoulos from comment #33)
> Now that we have a potential patch what are the steps to get it included
> into the gcc codebase?
great question!
I think the best option is to give me rights t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108350
--- Comment #35 from niXman ---
and the rights to edit my comments too =)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108495
Bug ID: 108495
Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] aarch64 ICE with
__builtin_aarch64_rndr
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108495
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I know, that is basically what I told the reporter in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161928
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108493
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108497
Bug ID: 108497
Summary: UBsan at -O1 failed to report an integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108408
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108493
Bug ID: 108493
Summary: Interaction with implicit includes and
-traditional-cpp
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108495
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108408
--- Comment #3 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So a big part of what's missing in druntime bindings is *any* declarations for
version(CRuntime_Newlib) targets. Though as I understand it, Cygwin is a bit
of a hybrid in that matter.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #39 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:054e407b7f68f714c024d8a9c983fdd53ceead2b
commit r13-5305-g054e407b7f68f714c024d8a9c983fdd53ceead2b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108481
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108497
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108493
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
I can reproduce this with C - so it's not specifically a module-2 issue (but
the use of traditional-cpp does trigger it .. and for keywords within (* *) so
we need to figure out what the intended semantics are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108432
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.2.1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108491
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
how did you configure? does the build pick up the host tools?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108408
--- Comment #5 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Corinna from comment #4)
> I'm not sure what you mean with "hybrid".
Probably the wrong word to use, based on what I was told via gcc irc.
"""
the relationship of cygwin1.dll and new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #14 from Mark Rutland ---
> Patch posted before, but seems like not everybody agree:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603049.html
FWIW, from the arm64 kernel side all we need is a reliable mechanism to align
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Bug ID: 108498
Summary: ppc64 big endian generates uninitialized reads with
-fstore-merging
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108408
--- Comment #4 from Corinna ---
I'm not sure what you mean with "hybrid".
Cygwin is just one of the citizens in the newlib libc world, supporting
16, 32, and 64 bit targets. Usually the most full-featured one, but
still...
The underlying str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
Bug ID: 108496
Summary: [13 Regression] NRV ICE since r13-4469
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108494
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108144
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> No, you need to amend
>
> # move shared libs from versionspecific dir to main libdir
> for libname in \
> %if %{build_fortran}
> libgfortran \
> ...
>
> fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108494
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, we only cache threads at the outermost parallelism level, for nested
parallelism threads are created and destructed as needed.
I know libomp basically never destroys threads (except for
omp_pause_resou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #1 from Adam Stylinski ---
I also should note this affects GCC 11.3, as well. The code being generated
via this optimization, while marginally shorter, seems to be rather suboptimal
in general. Here's what clang's emitting for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #3 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This might be a valgrind bug of not tracking bits correctly for some ppc
> instructions.
It's most certainly not, though. That bit is explicitly being set to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108479
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108499
Bug ID: 108499
Summary: False positive -Warray-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108491
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This error is from sysv4.h SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS. -msecure-plt is
unconditionally required.
It looks like an oversight that it is not required in the assembler you
used (which is that?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #4 from Adam Stylinski ---
Also I strongly suspect valgrind is correctly identifying the unitialized bits
because the underlying bug it produces is a "sometimes" bug, depending on
what's on the heap. Sometimes insn.sat is 0 (when it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108047
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #6 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> maybe a stack sharing issue? Can you try -fstack-reuse=none?
So that does fix it, at least when the struct is backed by the stack. And also
valgrind is no l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #7 from Adam Stylinski ---
Err wait, my bad, I had added the workaround in that source code. The bug
still exists when I take out that pragma to push no store-merging.
adam@g5box ~ $ valgrind ./test.out
==27014== Memcheck, a memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #8 from Adam Stylinski ---
Here's the code GCC emits:
17a0 <.emit_test>:
17a0: 7c 08 02 a6 mflrr0
17a4: fb e1 ff f8 std r31,-8(r1)
17a8: 3d 42 ff fe addis r10,r2,-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108499
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Adding:
if (!theSize)
__builtin_unreachable();
After the declaration of theSize, fixes the warning.
I don't know if in the original code there was a check for zero theSize or not
but the warning di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108432
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> Many warning messages are also dependent on optimisation level. And the
> actual generated code is as well ;-)
>
> -O0 means do the least possible work to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108476
--- Comment #3 from Alex Henrie ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note the warning should really be split into two different options. One for
> the return type of the declaration and one for the missing return in
> non-void case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107678
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108405
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcc023e2b4dd0dc1fd1fca3ea12664d5bdade4dc
commit r13-5307-gbcc023e2b4dd0dc1fd1fca3ea12664d5bdade4dc
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108447
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 54327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54327&action=edit
possible patch
There's another infrastructure patch which precedes this one which turns
existing relation_un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
commit r13-5308-g47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108480
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
commit r13-5308-g47b269caf87904fd0112e8c9e96884dd0313ed15
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
Bug ID: 108500
Summary: -O -finline-small-functions results in "internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault" on a very large
program (700k function calls)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108405
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108182
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
The only thing is memcpy could be broken ...
I can't find anything wrong with the generated code.
17cc: 38 a0 00 44 li r5,68
...
17d8: 3c 00 02 00 lis r0,512
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
oh wait there is no store to 124 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #11 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> The only thing is memcpy could be broken ...
>
> I can't find anything wrong with the generated code.
>
>
> 17cc: 38 a0 00 44 li r5,68
> ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Adam Stylinski from comment #11)
> It's possible's a glibc bug and clang avoids it by simply not needing it but
> it seems doubtful a small memcpy like this would have an issue that didn't
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
Bug ID: 108501
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at
fortran/interface.cc:2941
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
Bug ID: 108502
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at
fortran/dependency.cc:1295
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108503
Bug ID: 108503
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in get_array_or_vector_nelts, at
cp/constexpr.cc:4119
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108504
Bug ID: 108504
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in cp_lexer_handle_early_pragma,
at cp/parser.cc:675
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #14 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Ok, this seems wrong:
>
> New sequence of 1 stores to replace old one of 10 stores
> # .MEM_102 = VDEF <.MEM_101>
> MEM [(void *)&insn] = "\x02\x00\xff\x03\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
dhekir at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54328|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
Bug ID: 108505
Summary: Arm: arm-none-eabi toolchain build failing with
compiler error.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
--- Comment #15 from Adam Stylinski ---
(In reply to Adam Stylinski from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> > Ok, this seems wrong:
> >
> > New sequence of 1 stores to replace old one of 10 stores
> > # .MEM_102 = VDE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
How did you configure GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
--- Comment #2 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
/media/sripar01/2tb_work/trunk_gcc_13/src/gcc/configure'
'--target=arm-none-eabi'
'--prefix=/media/sripar01/2tb_work/trunk_gcc_13/build-arm-none-eabi/install'
'--with-gmp=/media/sripar01/2tb_work/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
--- Comment #3 from Srinath Parvathaneni
---
I introduced the bug, working on the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108505
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108432
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Unfortunately, some analyzer warnings work better with optimization
> *disabled*. -fanalyzer runs much later than most other static analyzers.
Understood.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b125d01a5d5e601961419396332b74eea2219bb
commit r13-5310-g4b125d01a5d5e601961419396332b74eea2219bb
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108496
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108195
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6669c0a50ed8aee9e5997d61e6271668d149218
commit r13-5311-ge6669c0a50ed8aee9e5997d61e6271668d149218
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-23
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107952
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> GCC considered this as a flex-array.
do you mean for the following example:
typedef struct {
char pad;
char data[];
} F2;
typedef struct {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 54330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54330&action=edit
Patch for the ICE in get_expr_storage_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, |ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-23
Statu
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
