https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #10 from Jim Wilson ---
Created attachment 47774
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47774&action=edit
testcase that reproduces for me
compile with -O2 -fPIC -fstack-protector-strong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88999
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This may be the same as PR 79193. I'll check and see whether the patch
attached to that issue fixes it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93550
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92295
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Can we close the issue?
Yes, it's fixed in GCC10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88999
--- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've been taking another look at this issue. It looks like the trouble is that
the "checking for S_ISREG or S_IFREG" test in the configure script is failing
because it tries to link the test progr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93560
Bug ID: 93560
Summary: strstr(s, s) not folded to s
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90636
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90636
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:628ee3c2f339da37e7570bcce0ebc6eb12bc33ae
commit r10-6422-g628ee3c2f339da37e7570bcce0ebc6eb12bc33ae
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86917
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93519
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- |https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
A new patch works with both .cfi_startproc and DWARF debug info:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00107.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90636
--- Comment #5 from Dr. Thomas Orgis ---
I traced it down to the gcc build process not applying the -g flag
consistently.
In my build log, I see the respective objects being built two times (not sure
in which directory the second one happens, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] G++ |[8/9 Regression] G++
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fda2c274ac66d60c1dfc1349e9efb4e8c2a3580
commit r10-6416-g8fda2c274ac66d60c1dfc1349e9efb4e8c2a3580
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66477
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87fbd5347b33883006dc77e779b9edc590fcd2f0
commit r10-6417-g87fbd5347b33883006dc77e779b9edc590fcd2f0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 66477, which changed state.
Bug 66477 Summary: [constexpr] accepts-invalid with constexpr member call on
non-constant reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66477
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66477
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93559
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
struct E { int d[10]; };
struct S {
constexpr int operator()(char) { return 42; }
};
template struct X {
constexpr static E foo(S s) { return {{s(1)}}; }
};
S s;
static_assert((X::foo(s), 1), "");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93230
--- Comment #7 from meissner at linux dot ibm.com ---
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 07:02:32AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93230
>
> --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Does it make sense
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92291
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So one more tidbit before I have to put this down.
The reason we don't CSE the library calls is because the REG_EQUAL note we rely
upon is removed.
At the start of CSE we call df_analyze which recomputes t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66477
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 47773
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47773&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
"GCC: (GNU) 10.0.1 20200203 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 pr93197]$ cat b.s
.file "b.c"
.text
.globl _start
.type _start, @function
_start:
.section__patchable_functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 93197 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93559
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93559
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93559
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
y
--enable-__cxa_atexit
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.1 20200203 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93559
Bug ID: 93559
Summary: internal compiler error: side-effects element in
no-side-effects CONSTRUCTOR
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92291
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
Bug 93388 depends on bug 93511, which changed state.
Bug 93511 Summary: ICE in make_region_for_type analyzing zlib/gzwrite.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93511
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93511
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93457
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93543
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Here's a simpler patch; does it fix the build with clang?
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
PR analyzer/93543
* engine.cc (pod_hash_traits::mark_empty):
Eliminate reinterpret_cast.
(pod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93458
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93558
Bug ID: 93558
Summary: missing mempcpy folding defeats strlen optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92844
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Make that...
I see no failures after 2020-02-01.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92844
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93546
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93547
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8525d1f5f57b11fe04a97674cc2fc2b7727621d0
commit r10-6412-g8525d1f5f57b11fe04a97674cc2fc2b7727621d0
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93546
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e10b9a28be9061b9b0c4aa3cfabe6d478e444e0
commit r10-6410-g5e10b9a28be9061b9b0c4aa3cfabe6d478e444e0
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93547
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:287ccd3bd6b92f11ec90c52ffccb764aacfadb89
commit r10-6409-g287ccd3bd6b92f11ec90c52ffccb764aacfadb89
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93557
Bug ID: 93557
Summary: __builtin_convertvector doesn't mak input as used
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93197
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93556
Bug ID: 93556
Summary: lower mempcpy to memcpy when result is unused
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90636
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It's odd, in that we're not seeing the same problem. It's serious if you
absolutely rely on getting good information from libbacktrace in all
circumstances. It doesn't indicate a problem deeper than an i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I don't think so, since the write back will update the timestamp. It would
only rerun it once per make anyway.
Also, the timestamp approach is really designed for files in the build area,
not those in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93555
Bug ID: 93555
Summary: ICE in simd_clone_struct_copy, at omp-simd-clone.c:84
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Won't this invoke it all the time if the timestamp of the generated files is
older than timestamp of the sources from which it is generated?
Which was the reason I've used stamp files in the #c5 patch simila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554
Bug ID: 93554
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at
omp-expand.c:6035
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93553
Bug ID: 93553
Summary: ICE in copy_reference_ops_from_ref, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:964
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93553
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82086
David Sagan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.sagan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:492c63e5b72c3497160e2c2e113fb91644b3570e
commit r10-6407-g492c63e5b72c3497160e2c2e113fb91644b3570e
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93552
Bug ID: 93552
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_exit, at
fortran/trans-stmt.c:6110
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #8 from Giulio Benetti ---
Do you mind to use official Buildroot script to reproduce?
Here is the procedure:
# git clone git://git.busybox.net/buildroot
# wget https://git.busybox.net/buildroot-test/tree/utils/br-reproduce-build
- m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93551
Bug ID: 93551
Summary: Call from templated function to constrained
constructor segfaults when attempting to narrow to
bool
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91085
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
PR80005 is not relevant here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91085
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, at least PR80005 has been fixed...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It was the typeck2.c (store_init_value): Don't call cp_fully_fold_init on
initializers of automatic non-constexpr variables in constexpr
functions. part of the above change btw, with that reverted the folding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #6 from Giulio Benetti ---
And this is how riscv32 gcc has been configured:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/giuliobenetti/br_reproduce/9a405ec6fabfa306c14a671a5e09359ac623c25b/output/host/opt/ext-toolchain/bin/riscv32-buildroo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #5 from Giulio Benetti ---
Here is the specific command line which compiles .cpp file:
/home/giuliobenetti/br_reproduce/9a405ec6fabfa306c14a671a5e09359ac623c25b/output/host/bin/riscv32-linux-g++
--sysroot=/home/giuliobenetti/br_reprod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47770&action=edit
gcc10-pr93549.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93532
--- Comment #4 from Giulio Benetti ---
Created attachment 47769
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47769&action=edit
.ii of file where gcc hangs on building
This is the .ii of file where gcc hangs on building.
Hi,
Hope you are doing good.
I found your email on the web. I would like to discuss business oppurtunity
with you.
Are you looking for more customers? I would really like to help your business
raise through 1st page og Google.
Send me an email if you would like to increase your online profi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #3)
[...]
> I'm not sure either now. I bet I've seen
>
> | 11 | bs = dx = !!ja ? qd () : 0;
> | |~~^~~
> | |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #0)
> > (BTW, w/o -O1 the analysis seems to be wrong in that double-free happens
> > following "false" branch, but that'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93550
Bug ID: 93550
Summary: Implement control of leading zero in formatted numeric
output
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91953
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91052
--- Comment #13 from Kewen Lin ---
> “The newly generated doesn't look incorrect since some semantic changes as
> below.”
Sorry, typo, it should be "The newly generated insn doesn't look correct since
some semantic changes as below."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
PR93512 is marked as enhancement, but if we don't fix this it is a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91052
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Looking into why the above commit caused this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93545
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47768
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47768&action=edit
gcc10-pr93545-2.patch
As discussed on IRC, here is incremental patch to reject __has_include outside
of preproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3539fc1317267b30eb7c4ad48d52f4e46b3a198a
commit r10-6405-g3539fc1317267b30eb7c4ad48d52f4e46b3a198a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r10-3661-g8e007055dd1374ca4c44406a4ead172be0dfa3a8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #0)
[...snip...]
Thanks for filing this, I'm investigating the ICE.
> (BTW, w/o -O1 the analysis seems to be wrong in that double-free happens
> following "false" br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93309
--- Comment #7 from ripero84 at gmail dot com ---
Thank you! - FYI, this behaviour was present in all versions I tried since GCC
5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90636
Dr. Thomas Orgis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.or...@uni-hamburg.de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Ah, thanks I will do that.
Apparently the git conversion is to blame :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93549
Bug ID: 93549
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE / Segfault in constexpr expansion
involving vector_size(16) short COND_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
