.org/g/ogyZW8
g++ 8.0.1 20180411 -O3 -march=haswell gives us this inner loop:
...
# outer loop
movl%edi, %eax
# idiv to test if inner loop should even run once, leaving n/i in eax
.L4:
movl%edi, %eax# but instead we discard it
addq$4, %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85350
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85364
Bug ID: 85364
Summary: -fopenmp should not put array in program on the stack
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85365
Bug ID: 85365
Summary: -Wrestrict false positives with -fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85363
Bug ID: 85363
Summary: Throwing exception from member constructor (brace
initializer vs initializer list)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
OK, I think I just have gotten closer to what is wrong:
$ gfortran -g -O1 -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 do_concurrent_5.f90
$ ./a.out
$ gfortran -g -O1 -ftree-parallelize-loops=2 -fopenmp do_concurrent_5.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> > > The test should probably go to gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/.
> >
> > No, the testcase should go into libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/,
> > as it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85356
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85362
Bug ID: 85362
Summary: unnecessary checks with -fsanitize=object-size and
non-int indices
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85361
Bug ID: 85361
Summary: Variable length array allowed in c89/90
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82686
--- Comment #12 from Dennis Clarke ---
Thanks .. I'll give that a try. The real objective here is to get a simple
native bootstrap going which includes libquadmath. My concern is that
there is no support for that unless the ppc64 system has the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82686
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Klose ---
you might want --enable-objc-gc=auto or --disable-objc-gc. See install.texi for
the docs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85360
Bug ID: 85360
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/deallocate_stat.f90 -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops
-ftracer -finline-functions (ICE)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85359
Bug ID: 85359
Summary: duplicate -Wstringop-overflow for a strcmp call with a
nonstring pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85358
Bug ID: 85358
Summary: PowerPC: Using -mabi=ieeelongdouble -mcpu=power9
breaks __ibm128
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85325
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85357
Bug ID: 85357
Summary: Regression: gfortran versions 7.2.0/8.0.1 reject F03
procedure overriding
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85347
--- Comment #1 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW, the test runs ok on bns -m32 as written.
Executing on host: /home/kelvin/gcc/build/gcc-trunk4fixvecldl.b4patch/gcc/xgcc
\
-B/home/kelvin/gcc/build/gcc-trunk4fixvecldl.b4patch/gcc/
/home/kelv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85356
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
...
> Another alternative would be to implicitly reset the #pragma pack on "entry"
> to every C++ standard header (or even every header), and restore it on
> "exit."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85345
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85345
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #1 from H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85356
Bug ID: 85356
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE with operator=
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82065
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
This looks pretty much like a namespace problem.
Adding in the example in comment #4
common /x/ integer_kinds
e.g. to subroutine sub1 makes the code illegal but compile.
It then prints:
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85355
Bug ID: 85355
Summary: new test case
g++.dg/warn/Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant-7.C fails
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > The test should probably go to gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/.
>
> No, the testcase should go into libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/,
> as it is a runtime test which needs the runtime library.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85352
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
Bug ID: 85354
Summary: [8 regression] ICE with gcc.dg/graphite/pr84872.c
starting with r259313
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Apr 11 16:50:16 2018
New Revision: 259326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR testsuite/85190
* gcc.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50525
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Duplicate of pr34663?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85353
Bug ID: 85353
Summary: deprecation warning issued on data member with
initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85352
--- Comment #1 from mecej4 ---
The bug goes away if some apparently unrelated changes are made. For example,
if "ENTRY rfinit" is commented out, the bug is not seen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I asked Peter about that yesterday. The access to *p in your example is still
meant to be undefined even under the proposed provenance rules. Here's his
response: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/15051
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85352
Bug ID: 85352
Summary: Incorrect error diagnosed for dummy argument used in
specification expression to subprogram with ENTRY
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77346
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
Target Milestone|7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77346
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 11, 2018 4:21:06 PM GMT+02:00, "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
>
>--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> Looks good to me, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70808
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 11 15:55:15 2018
New Revision: 259325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70808
* g++.dg/warn/Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85321
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What warning do you expect? The problem is not specific to ostringstream, so we
can't just add a warning when you try to use packing with that particular type.
It happens for any code which you link to and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85321
--- Comment #5 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Wed Apr 11 15:25:42 2018
New Revision: 259324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259324&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-11 Aaron Sawdey
PR target/85321
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351
Bug ID: 85351
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage with an executed exit() in if
statement within a called function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> I have been looking at this and the problem does indeed lie with the
> register not being a hard reg because aarch64_mem_pair_lanes_operand invokes
> aarch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
--- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have been looking at this and the problem does indeed lie with the register
not being a hard reg because aarch64_mem_pair_lanes_operand invokes
aarch64_legitimate_address_p with 1 for the strict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 84566, which changed state.
Bug 84566 Summary: error: qsort comparator not anti-commutative: -1, -1 on
aarch64 in sched1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 84566, which changed state.
Bug 84566 Summary: error: qsort comparator not anti-commutative: -1, -1 on
aarch64 in sched1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84301
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Apr 11 14:36:04 2018
New Revision: 259322
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259322&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sched-deps: respect deps->readonly in macro-fusion (PR 84566)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85350
Bug ID: 85350
Summary: [GCOV] wrong coverage when using constant variable in
struct declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ktka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84301
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Apr 11 14:32:32 2018
New Revision: 259321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sched-rgn: run add_branch_dependencies for sel-sched (PR 84301)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85342
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43911
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43911&action=edit
gcc8-pr85342.patch
Untested fix. After failed apply_change_group, recog_data.insn is NULL and
rest of recog_da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85238
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Looks good to me, aka OK if it passes whatever testing you think is
> sufficient.
Thanks. There is apparently another, preexisting issue visible in Ada:
$ gcc -o t t.c -flto -g
lto-wrapper.exe: fatal e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The test should probably go to gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85349
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
crillion at tiscali dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from cr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85334
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85349
Bug ID: 85349
Summary: [GCOV] struct varaible definition in while(1) will
cause incorrect coverage
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3885
Zack Weinberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zackw at panix dot com
--- Comment #14 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85331
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84613
Bug 84613 depends on bug 84149, which changed state.
Bug 84149 Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf/605.mcf ~10% performance
regression with r256888
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 84149, which changed state.
Bug 84149 Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf/605.mcf ~10% performance
regression with r256888
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Bug 84016 depends on bug 84149, which changed state.
Bug 84149 Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf/605.mcf ~10% performance
regression with r256888
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85331
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 11 13:35:13 2018
New Revision: 259320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85331
* vec-perm-indices.h (vec_perm_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85348
Bug ID: 85348
Summary: ostringstream with #pragma pack(1) causes stack
smashing error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Apr 11 13:30:53 2018
New Revision: 259319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve IPA-CP handling of self-recursive calls
2018-04-11 Martin Jam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85329
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 43910
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43910&action=edit
preprocessed source
source package is https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/i2pd
upstream is http://i2pd.websi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85347
Bug ID: 85347
Summary: New testcase vec-ldl-1.c FAILs on powerpc64-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85032
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85032
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 11 13:10:16 2018
New Revision: 259318
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259318&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85032
* constexpr.c (potential_constant_expressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85339
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 11 13:05:35 2018
New Revision: 259317
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259317&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-11 Richard Biener
PR lto/85339
* dwarf2out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85346
Bug ID: 85346
Summary: gfortran.dg/do_concurrent_5.f90 FAILs with
--disable-libgomp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85345
Bug ID: 85345
Summary: Missing ENDBR in IFUNC resolver
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85343
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85343
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69560
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #15)
> > > Because the ABI says so.
> >
> > Which ABI? In https://www.ucli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Thom
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
