https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92901
Frederik Harwath changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92918
Bug ID: 92918
Summary: Does not do name lookup when using from base class
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] [OpenMP]
on algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.0 20191211 (experimental) (GCC)
Which git commit id is HEAD?
===
300dae5c80ddda7ab4fedffaa0bbf53887232a53
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@279250
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
I have attached a possible (lazy) fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92899
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 11 23:58:04 2019
New Revision: 279266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/92899
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_atomic):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson ---
The only reason I can think for jump tables to be put into the text
section is the old aout format, which didn't have a separate read
only data section. There should be no reason to do that these days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92835
--- Comment #2 from Ron ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> (In reply to Ron from comment #0)
> > I am trying to compile and run my OpenACC code with GNU 9.1.0 branch.
> >
> > I am getting the following error:
>
> Thanks for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92723
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 11 23:49:30 2019
New Revision: 279265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/92723
* tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_recog_rotate_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92916
Bug ID: 92916
Summary: elf_add freeing strtab_view in fail, even though it
shouldn't
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92782
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #12 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think that case vector stuff was written by Richard Henderson FWIW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
The SPARC port even has a specific implementation here:
/* This is how we hook in and defer the case-vector until the end of
the function. */
#define ASM_OUTPUT_ADDR_VEC(LAB,VEC) \
sparc_defer_case_ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|jump tables are put in the |jump tables are put into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #8 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I cannot think of any specific reason why the jump tables were put into the
text section. I even tried to consider relocation ramifications.
Maybe this makes GOT OP linker optimizations more likel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92907
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92897
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92897
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Dec 11 20:18:17 2019
New Revision: 279249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/92897
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since accessing a misaligned variable is undefined behaviour, I don't think it
should be permitted in constant expressions (at least for the cases where the
alignment is reduced from its natural value).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92915
--- Comment #2 from darksectordds ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is not a bug in GCC as make is failing with an internal error. Please
> report it to the msys folks instead.
I'd be glad if you could tell me where. It is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So assuming the intend is to put the jump table in the rodata section,
> something seems to be broken in the build then.
No, see my earlier remark, this was intended.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #5 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
I guess JUMP_TABLES_IN_TEXT_SECTION is supposed to mean that the "jump tables"
should not be put in the text section.
However something is wrong then because gcc 9 (and maybe previous) is putting
th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #4 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
Created attachment 47475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47475&action=edit
assembly file with jump tables in the text section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92897
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Dec 11 19:28:57 2019
New Revision: 279247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/92897
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92915
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92769
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Christophe Leroy from comment #2)
> But CR0 being volatile doesn't prevent GCC to set/clr its SO bit just before
> branching to LR as the ASM functions do, does it ?
Not at all, no. But e.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92869
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 11 18:44:02 2019
New Revision: 279241
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92869
* class.c (finish_struct): For C++17 and earl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92878
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Dec 11 18:40:55 2019
New Revision: 279240
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279240&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92878 - Parenthesized init of aggregates in new-expressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92488
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc |powerpc*
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92769
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Leroy ---
But CR0 being volatile doesn't prevent GCC to set/clr its SO bit just before
branching to LR as the ASM functions do, does it ?
In our ABIs, r3 is also volatile in our ABIs, it doesn't prevent using it as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92769
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92105
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:51:14 2019
New Revision: 279237
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92105 - decltype(decltype) error cascade.
The primary chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57082
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:51:09 2019
New Revision: 279236
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279236&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/57082 - new X{} and private destructor.
build_new_1 alread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92774
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:51:05 2019
New Revision: 279235
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279235&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92774 - ICE with implicitly deleted operator<=>.
Missing e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92843
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:49:27 2019
New Revision: 279234
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279234&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR92843] [OpenACC] Fix dynamic reference counting for structured
'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92859
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:48:44 2019
New Revision: 279229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92859 - ADL and bit-field.
We also need unlowered_expr_typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92854
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:48:59 2019
New Revision: 279231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR92854] Add 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/acc_map_data-device_already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92446
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:48:22 2019
New Revision: 279228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92446 - deduction of class NTTP.
Another place we need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92915
Bug ID: 92915
Summary: msys issue couldn't commit memory for cygwin heap
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92899
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47473
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47473&action=edit
gcc10-pr92899.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 79221, which changed state.
Bug 79221 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow= on a strcat overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79221
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79221
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79221
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Dec 11 15:59:55 2019
New Revision: 279227
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279227&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79221 - missing -Wstringop-overflow= on a strcat overflow
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79221
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0, 8.1.0, 9.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896
--- Comment #4 from MarkEggleston ---
reduce_unary (arith (*eval) (gfc_expr *, gfc_expr **), gfc_expr *op,
gfc_expr **result)
{
gfc_constructor_base head;
gfc_constructor *c;
gfc_expr *r;
arith rc;
if (op->expr_type == EX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896
--- Comment #3 from MarkEggleston ---
The value 'A' is padded out with spaces giving a value 2314885530818453554.
Avoiding the conversion and using the value directly:
program p
print *, [integer :: 1, [integer(8) :: 2314885530818453554]]
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91843
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
--- Comment #7 from lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: lhyatt
Date: Wed Dec 11 14:52:31 2019
New Revision: 279226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adds multibyte awareness to pretty-print.c
2019-12-11 Lewis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92913
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
And the last piece is this one:
if (opts->x_optimize == 0)
{
/* Inlining does not work if not optimizing,
so force it not to be done. */
opts->x_warn_inline = 0;
opts->x_flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
param_min_crossjump_insns is changed here when we switch optimization level:
if (opts->x_optimize_size)
/* We want to crossjump as much as possible. */
SET_OPTION_IF_UNSET (opts, opts_set, param_mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Example 1:
$ cat tc.c
void linker_error();
__attribute__ ((optimize("-O0")))
int a ()
{
}
static int remove_me ()
{
linker_error ();
}
void
main()
{
}
$ ./xgcc -B. -Os tc.c -c -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #4 from Stephen ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55347 is also related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #3 from Stephen ---
Also, I tried to follow what I think was indicated in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56328 in that I forward declared
the specialization in the header.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #2 from Stephen ---
Also:
stephen@j5:~/dev/src/playground/cpp/build$ nm mylib.g++.o | c++filt
W Templ::getAnotherNum() const
W Templ::getNum() const
W Templ::getAnotherNum() const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
--- Comment #1 from Stephen ---
www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22AC/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0537r0.html may be related
to this too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92914
Bug ID: 92914
Summary: Hidden visibility incompatible with extern'd
specialized explicit template instantiations
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91786
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Dec 11 13:45:56 2019
New Revision: 279223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/91786 fix compilation error with Clang
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91786
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92908
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47472
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47472&action=edit
gcc10-pr92908.patch
Full untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Perhaps only xmm0 is problematic, as making xmm0 unused by adding a dummy
argument brings back the old spill-free result:
float my_copysign(float dummy, float x, float y)
{
union {float f; unsigned i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92908
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r279107.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92913
Bug ID: 92913
Summary: Add argument-mismatch check for INTERFACE for
non-module procedures in the same file
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92908
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92912
Bug ID: 92912
Summary: Bad diagnostic for capture of this in free function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92911
Bug ID: 92911
Summary: Valid lambda inside variadic template does not compile
(2)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92910
Bug ID: 92910
Summary: Valid lambda inside variadic template does not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 7.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92843
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jules at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92909
Bug ID: 92909
Summary: ICE on incorrect lambda inside variadic template
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, it isn't about , using rm in the first alternative of the reverted
define_insn works well too, as well as swapping the alternatives (that is in
that case basically what the trunk has, except in the seco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91374
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92908
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 47471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47471&action=edit
reduced testcase
-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-279212-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.0.0 20191211 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
The decision dates back to the rewrite of the SPARC port in 1998:
21652 davem /* Align to cache line in the function's code section. */
21652 davem function_section (current_function_decl);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92907
Bug ID: 92907
Summary: noexcept does not consider "const" in member functions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
Bug ID: 92906
Summary: [10 regression] FAIL: libstdc++-abi/abi_check
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
Bug ID: 92905
Summary: [10 Regression] Spills float-int union to memory
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92901
--- Comment #2 from Frederik Harwath ---
Created attachment 47469
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47469&action=edit
Committed fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92897
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92898
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92897
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92901
--- Comment #1 from Frederik Harwath ---
Author: frederik
Date: Wed Dec 11 08:26:18 2019
New Revision: 279215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279215&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR92901: Change test expectation for C++ in OpenACC test clause-
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
