https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Roberts ---
Again those latest mt19937ar results above were with the current snapshot:
/usr/local/gcc/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/gcc/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-8.0.0/libexe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Roberts ---
Created attachment 42735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42735&action=edit
modified mt19937ar test program, test script and results
modified mt19937ar test program, test script and res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Roberts ---
Ok trying an entirely different algorith, same results:
Using Mersenne Twister algorithm from here:
http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/MT2002/emt19937ar.html
alter main program to comment out
e-libgomp --enable-fully-dynamic-string --disable-multilib
--enable-checking=release --disable-werror --with-sysroot=/x86_64-w64-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171127 (experimental) [trunk revision 255161] (GCC)
The bootstrap compiler is:
$
/opt/devel/gnu/gcc/MINGW_NT/x86_64-w64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83194
Bug ID: 83194
Summary: Possibly missed simplification with strcmp(s, t) ==
strcmp(t, s)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83142
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83193
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Roberts ---
The same comments also apply to the -mcpu and -mtune options as well. Double
output on arm for -mcpu, and missing help for native.
also:
gcc -Q --help=target
used to document the allowable -mcpu/-mtune opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83190
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
sizeof "012\0" is 5. There are two NULs at the end, one explicit in the
initializer string and one implicitly appended by the compiler.
That the size is 5 can also be seen in the dump of g():
g ()
{
char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83193
Bug ID: 83193
Summary: Help for invalid -march= options from cc1 omits
-march=native on x86-64, arm. aarch64, output also
inconsistent
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83192
Bug ID: 83192
Summary: ICE for printing derived type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
Bug ID: 83191
Summary: Writing a namelist with repeated complex numbers
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Nov 28 01:28:57 2017
New Revision: 255188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Improve comparison rtx_cost (PR81288)
The current rs6000 rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83190
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't the sizeof a, 4?
If so the call to strlen in g is undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83190
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83190
Bug ID: 83190
Summary: missing strlen optimization of the empty string
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 28 00:02:17 2017
New Revision: 255182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83058 - ICE on C++ code with negative array index: in
warn_placemen
)
YPP(I) = 6*(DNEW - DOLD)
YP(I) = DOLD
DOLD = DNEW
End Do
Return
End Subroutine SPLIFT
End Module radin_mod
$gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.0.0 20171127 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Andrey Guskov from comment #6)
> Simple. Those fails are due to the same revision.
I see, I have missed the very first line in your bug description and
then wondered whether that was the case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83163
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83188
Bug ID: 83188
Summary: A class-wide type is considered different than itself
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83182
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
wi::to_offset does check for an INTEGER_CST, via the tree.h accessor macros.
Are you sure you have a normal --enable-checking=yes build? I get:
cc1: internal compiler error: tree check: expe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] Structured |[7 Regression] Structured
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81888
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 27 21:54:25 2017
New Revision: 255180
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255180&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81888
* parser.c (cp_parser_decomposition_declarati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83139
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83172
--- Comment #4 from Hao Hou ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> > The same result:
> >
> > $ gcc-7 -Wvla-larger-than=128 -Wstack-usage=102400 -O0 -c t.c
> > t.c: In function ‘stack_usage_only’:
> > t.c:23:5: warning: stack usage m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Guskov ---
Simple. Those fails are due to the same revision.
I decided not to create a truckload of separate bugs (there`s also a chance
that there are more cases to come, as 3 CPU2006 regressions are still not done
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83180
Lars Kanis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Known to work|
cos(double);
double sin(double);
}
template class a;
template <> struct a {
typedef __complex__ b;
a(double c, double p2) : k{c, p2} {}
b k;
};
typedef double d;
d e;
class f {
a g;
void h();
};
void f::h() {
const d i = e;
g = a(cos(e), sin(e));
}
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80818
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #8)
> Hi Vladimir. What do you think about the additional patch?
Andreas, sorry for the delay with the answer. The patch looks reasonable for
me. If your additi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80916
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70834
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||6.4.0, 7.2.0, 8.0
--- Comment #6 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83172
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45975
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
CC|
from Sunil Pandey ---
This bug also appear during Linux kernel build from LFS with GCC 8. Work fine
with GCC 7.
$cat main.i.c
void __attribute__((__cold__)) a(void);
void b(void);
__attribute__((noinline)) c(void) { a(); }
d(void) {
b();
c();
}
$gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 8.0.0 20171127
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82333
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83076
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 42733
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42733&action=edit
A partial fix for the PR
This fixes the testcase and, indeed, some more elaborate versions. However,
coarray_allo
WDate.i.C
class a {
operator unsigned();
};
template void b() { static_cast(a{}); }
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20171127 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for
from Sunil Pandey ---
Seems like I hit the same bug while compiling mariadb with GCC8.
$cat CMap.i.cc
void a() {
int b = 0;
for (; b < 256; ++b)
a();
}
$g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20171127 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83170
Sunil Pandey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skpgkp1 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83183
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Andrey, what makes you think that the g++.dg/pr79095-4.C and regex.c
issues are related to dump scan failure of ipa/inline-1.c?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83184
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
AK changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hiraditya at msn dot com
--- Comment #27 from AK -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83180
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this is a binutils bug and should be reported to them
(https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ ).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83172
--- Comment #2 from Hao Hou ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> What happens for -Wvla-larger-than= if you use -O0 or -O1 instead of -O3?
The same result:
$ gcc-7 -Wvla-larger-than=128 -Wstack-usage=102400 -O0 -c t.c
t.c: In func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
Sudakshina Das changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sudi.das at arm dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82336
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
When checking the default arg during parsing, we perform an implicit conversion
inside an unevaluated_operand context. That's needed to fix 54198, where an
ill-formed instantiation occurs otherwise.
Howe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83185
Bug ID: 83185
Summary: ICE with -fsanitize=address in
build_simple_mem_ref_loc, at tree.c:4696
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83184
Bug ID: 83184
Summary: Out of memory or ICE with option -fdec
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> The #c5 approach sounds better to me, we can have memsets in the IL even
> from the user, so would be nice if we handled those in the dr analysis too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
And what's the output of 'gcc -v' for the base compiler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83183
Bug ID: 83183
Summary: Out of memory with option -finit-derived
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #9 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83172
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> r247301 is the switch to native exceptions for the compiler proper and we
> know that this works on 64-bit Windows. How do you configure the compiler?
../../../
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83182
Bug ID: 83182
Summary: undefined behavior in generic_wide_int due to missing
input validation
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81019
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83173
--- Comment #1 from Mike Gulick ---
Just a minor update. I re-tested the reproducer on gcc 5.4 as well as 4.9.2,
and the issue is present in both of those. I had originally thought the bug
was not present in gcc 5.4 or earlier, however this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Guskov ---
32-bit SPEC CPU2017::507/607 also affected:
during GIMPLE pass: vect
gnu/regex.c: In function 'regexec.constprop':
gnu/regex.c:5751:1: internal compiler error: in vectorizable_mask_load_store,
at tree-vect-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83181
Bug ID: 83181
Summary: [C++17] Invalid deduction guide accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79392
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83180
--- Comment #1 from Lars Kanis ---
Created attachment 42732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42732&action=edit
The DLL in question produced by MSVC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83180
Bug ID: 83180
Summary: MINGW: Linking to libpq.dll produced with MSVC-x64
generates invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea. The code that was recording NAME = NAME conditional equivalences was
largely disabled back in August. They'll only be recorded now if one name is
cheaper to compute than the other.
So if the conditi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81019
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Started with Honza's r255103.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Roberts ---
The general consensus in userland is that the znver1 optimization is much worse
than 0.5%, or even 2% off. Most people are using -march=haswell if they care
about performance.
Just taking one part of one o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83163
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83164
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
BZ mangled the underline a bit in comment #6; the caret is on the '-'
character, like this simplified version:
thunk->callback = LHS - RHS;
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83164
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > So is this option still helping with the latest microcode? Not in this case
> > at
> > least.
>
> It is on my TODO list to re-benchmark 256bit vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
>
> --- Comment #14 from Andrew Roberts ---
> It would be nice if znver1 for -march and -mtune could be improved before the
> gcc 8 release. At present -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83158
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Or rather
&& ((TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (*vr0min))
>= TYPE_PRECISION (integer_type_node))
|| POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (*vr0min)))
targeti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83158
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Roberts ---
It would be nice if znver1 for -march and -mtune could be improved before the
gcc 8 release. At present -march=znver1 -mtune=znver1 looks be to about the
worst thing you could do, and not just on this vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58693
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lennox at cs dot columbia.edu
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
> So is this option still helping with the latest microcode? Not in this case at
> least.
It is on my TODO list to re-benchmark 256bit vectorization for Zen. I do not
think microcode is a big difference here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58693
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
Sorry, I phrased it incorrectly, I meant to say, bug #71233 should supersede
this one. As in deed it has more details and is more up to date.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58693
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83158
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Indeed it's related. We now have range-info for
x_16 = x_15(D) + 2;
and thus:
Visiting conditional with predicate: if (x_16 == 0)
With known ranges
x_16: [-2147483646, +INF]
...
Intersecting
~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 42730
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42730&action=edit
WIP patch
What I have sitting in my tree. Steps to make this clean is
1) refactor things to record the orig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58693
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81675
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 27 13:13:22 2017
New Revision: 255167
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255167&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81675
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold) : Don't return imme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82066
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #1 from Andrey Guskov ---
g++.dg/pr79095-4.C also affected:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /work/gcc/testsuite/g++2/../../xg++
-B/work/gcc/testsuite/g++2/../../ /source/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr79095-4.C
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80929
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42729
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42729&action=edit
gcc8-pr80929.patch
Like this untested patch.
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
