https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87180
Bug ID: 87180
Summary: Pointer to member function comparison fails on
hppa-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25940
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tiagomacarios at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87179
Bug ID: 87179
Summary: duplicate extern "C" functions in different namespaces
not flagged as an error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87178
Bug ID: 87178
Summary: Compilation failure when program contains multiple
variables allocated in particular section, and at
least one variable is C++17 "inline"
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Here's the result of many hours of creduction
(and some manual reduction)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 44642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44642&action=edit
creduce output
Here's the result of many hours of creduction with this interestingness test:
#!/bin/bash
~/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78179
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-08-31 7:55 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78179
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> We already disable it rather liberally on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44638|0 |1
is obsolete|
-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180831 (experimental) [trunk revision 264021] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -Os
-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180831 (experimental) [trunk revision 264021] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87175
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87150
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87175
Bug ID: 87175
Summary: __attribute__)) is ignored by the parser
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87172
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> Draft patch:
Regtests cleanly on x86_64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87174
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87172
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Draft patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index ded27624283..ea0ce800743 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
@@ -14245,7 +14245,7 @@ resolve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87136
--- Comment #9 from Darko Veberic ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Why are you using a prerelease of gcc, when it has been released almost 4
> months ago? This bug has been fixed 9 days after your snapshot has been
> taken.
bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87173
--- Comment #2 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
Right, thanks.
I'll just submit a patch for gcc.dg/Walloc-size-larger-than-{4,5,6,7}.c to
require "size32plus" then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87136
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darko.veberic at ijs dot si
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87174
Bug ID: 87174
Summary: virt-specifier not recognized on function declared
like a variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87173
Bug ID: 87173
Summary: -Walloc-size-larger-than= silently fails for
operands/size values larger than __SIZE_MAX__
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87136
--- Comment #7 from Darko Veberic ---
i get the internal error with
g++ (Ubuntu 8-20180414-1ubuntu2) 8.0.1 20180414 (experimental) [trunk revision
259383]
and
g++-7 (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87136
--- Comment #6 from Darko Veberic ---
Created attachment 44639
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44639&action=edit
minimal example which contains the internal compiler error
minimal_example.cc:21:57: internal compiler error: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87136
--- Comment #5 from Darko Veberic ---
fortunately enough, i could manually find a very short minimal example which
still contains the failure. to reproduce the internal compiler error one should
compile the example as
g++ -c minimal_example.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66575
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87172
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced test case:
module m1
use iso_c_binding, only: c_funptr
end module
module m2
use m1
use iso_c_binding
end module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87136
--- Comment #4 from Darko Veberic ---
after 3 days of running the delta managed to bring down the .ii file from 4.5MB
to 1.4MB but it then failed with error message
Died at ~/soft/delta/trunk/delta line 123, <> line 104113.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87169
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87168
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Aug 31 16:50:13 2018
New Revision: 264021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-31 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87168
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42921
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84075
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reasonable people have different opinions on whether that's valid. But since
they're unlikely to change, I need to accept that with some implementations,
malloc(n) is aligned to min(n, alignof(max_align_t)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87172
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87172
Bug ID: 87172
Summary: [9 Regression] Spurious "Derived type 'c_funptr' at
(1) has not been declared" error after r263782
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87171
Bug ID: 87171
Summary: -march=native doesn't detect flags correctly on G4560
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86914
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matti.niemenmaa+gccbugs@iki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87169
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87167
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 44638
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44638&action=edit
proof of concept patch (diff -w)
Trying to get an idea of how things could look like. I know
is_trivially_move_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87168
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77435
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87104
--- Comment #13 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to pipcet from comment #12)
> So I think the performance difference is really significant for Emacs; my
> plan is to test all three versions on other programs, make sure the code
> works for C bitfie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87170
Bug ID: 87170
Summary: compiler complains about not referenced character
literals if they are only used in string literals
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87108
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87108
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87108
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43105
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Yasskin from comment #0)
> programs don't link when a -frtti class is derived from a -fno-rtti base
> class.
It's more complicated than that. The ABI defines when RTTI is emitted:
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86850
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
I tried out your suggestion and got this:
$ ~/gcc/results.264011.dcb.ubsan/bin/gcc -c -O3 -std=c89 -w bug453.c
during GIMPLE pass: slp
src/rate.c: In function ‘od_enc_rc_reset’:
src/rate.c:365:13: internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87169
Bug ID: 87169
Summary: ICE on valid code at -Os and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87168
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It shows a few things, first, SSA names defined before the value-numbered
region are not considered "available". So for
_1 = ...;
region_begin:
_2 = _1;
_3 = _2;
we'd not optimize to
_2 = _1;
_3 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84707
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84707
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Aug 31 12:57:45 2018
New Revision: 264017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87155] Anonymous namespace and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Aug 31 12:57:45 2018
New Revision: 264017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87155] Anonymous namespace and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86744
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Just remove XPASS.
Eh, XFAIL from the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86744
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Just remove XPASS.
Ideally, this test should also work for 64bit targets (PR 87055).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86744
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86898
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Fixed trunk r264016.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87155
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Aug 31 12:38:00 2018
New Revision: 264016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87155] Anonymous namespace and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84707
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Aug 31 12:38:00 2018
New Revision: 264016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/87155] Anonymous namespace and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87168
Bug ID: 87168
Summary: ICE on valid code at -Os and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87167
--- Comment #2 from Matti Niemenmaa ---
Thanks for the info. I peeked at the git log and came across PR86914 — this
looks like a duplicate of that. Sorry for not managing to find it in Bugzilla
earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87167
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80916
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-11-27 00:00:00 |2018-8-31
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87161
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This would all be solved if invalid warning options were never errors, as Richi
suggested.
Otherwise I think there would need to be a first pass of the options to look
for -Werror and then do a second pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87161
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nir Aizik from comment #3)
> I think what make it counter-intuitive is that warning from valid option the
> order of Werror is not important
Warnings from the code can't be emitted until compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87167
Bug ID: 87167
Summary: strlen of stack-allocated zero-length array
misoptimized in GCC 8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78179
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We already disable it rather liberally on AIX:
// { dg-xfail-run-if "AIX long double" { powerpc-ibm-aix* } }
Maybe we should split the long double parts into a separate file and just xfail
that on affecte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87161
--- Comment #3 from Nir Aizik ---
I think what make it counter-intuitive is that warning from valid option the
order of Werror is not important
example:
g++ -c -Wunused-variable -Werror test.cpp -o test.o
test.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> > I know Tom de Vries is working on this problem and has a prototype patch.
> > He'll be posting his work for 4.7.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78179
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87161
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |driver
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 87166, which changed state.
Bug 87166 Summary: 454.calculix benchmark is much slower on -Ofast with PGO or
LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87166
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87166
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87166
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87166
Bug ID: 87166
Summary: 454.calculix benchmark is much slower on -Ofast with
PGO or LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87164
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87164
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Caused by r263614.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87160
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
/usr/bin/powerpc64le-suse-linux-as --version
GNU assembler (GNU Binutils; openSUSE Tumbleweed) 2.31
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87164
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87157
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87156
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83877
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I see your use case but as mentioned I don't want to do gcov over complex about
locations. Hope you can live with the symlink creation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #3 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87165
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87165
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87165
Bug ID: 87165
Summary: Did you mean hints candidates equality
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87162
--- Comment #2 from Wen Yang ---
0x8837da lhd_decl_printable_name(tree_node*, int)
../../gcc-6.2.0/gcc/langhooks.c:222
0x883a36 lhd_print_error_function(diagnostic_context*, char const*,
diagnostic_info*)
../../gcc-6.2.0/gcc/langh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87164
Bug ID: 87164
Summary: ICE in output_1236, at config/rs6000/vsx.md:3236
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
