https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> SO it's not terrible to get the key block cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94546
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aedd04caa945260ea77fd22f29b77292f7dba72e
commit r10-7865-gaedd04caa945260ea77fd22f29b77292f7dba72e
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94546
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94510
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94510
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:587970215f4681def390e2a791aa3ba6adb65158
commit r10-7864-g587970215f4681def390e2a791aa3ba6adb65158
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
--- Comment #16 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> replacing flag_unsafe_math_operations by flag_finite_math_only isn't correct,
> but you can add it instead, i.e.
>
> - if ((! FLOAT_MO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85145
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #29 from Bill Seurer ---
The suggestion above was to use -finline-arg-packing but I will try
-fno-inline-arg-packing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67825
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05f14938111e34edd272628a9268444256735e10
commit r10-7862-g05f14938111e34edd272628a9268444256735e10
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92983
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I first took a clean RHEL 8.1 system with kernel-4.18.0-147 and verified
that this simple stap script would fail:
stap -p4 -e 'probe module("nfsv3").function("nfs3_commit_done") {
println($task) }'
Whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94645
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Thanks for the reduced testcases.
The problem in #c8 seems to start in grokfndecl() when processing the
operator() of the lambda. During grokfndecl on the operator(),
processing_template_decl is 1 but temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94549
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have now bootstrapped/regtested #c20 + #c21 on x86_64-linux and i686-linux
but I see
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_math.f90 -O0 execution test
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_math.f90 -O1 execution test
+FAIL: gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94549
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e665f256b4ac8c5f78713ebd4e9378fd4ecf5a8
commit r10-7859-g0e665f256b4ac8c5f78713ebd4e9378fd4ecf5a8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93807
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(Clang doesn't accept this code because it doesn't implement P0846R0 yet.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93807
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87252
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> (Note: no cross-binutils or anything needed, just gcc sources and a native
> gcc-4.4. This is an *old* installation which identifies itself as "gcc
> v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94702
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85145
--- Comment #7 from Jeroen Ooms ---
I'm sorry I no longer use this build script. Somehow the problem does not
appear with the msys2 build of gcc. You may close this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 94655, which changed state.
Bug 94655 Summary: [10 Regression] Implicit assignment operator triggers
stringop-overflow warning since r10-5451-gef29b12cfbb4979a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94149
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d76925e46fad09fc9be6759cbf1f23c9a8344dbf
commit r10-7856-gd76925e46fad09fc9be6759cbf1f23c9a8344dbf
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94622
--- Comment #3 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm wondering if the same problem exists for atomic_store, store_quadpti,
and pstq vs stq?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
Bug ID: 94703
Summary: Small-sized memcpy leading to unnecessary register
spillage unless done through a dummy union
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #21 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 48332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48332&action=edit
Patch to protect trigd functions based on system availability
Patch for trigd include pieces to check for HAVE_X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94702
Bug ID: 94702
Summary: std::unsequenced_policy should not be defined for
C++17
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
I can think of only one way the warning code could avoid triggering here: by
assuming that the difference between two pointers into the same array is less
than or equal the size of the array (with non-array o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92983
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90254
Nicholas Krause changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48327|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94701
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94701
Bug ID: 94701
Summary: coroutines: Wrong code for structured bindings.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drahflow at gmx dot de
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 94655, which changed state.
Bug 94655 Summary: [10 Regression] Implicit assignment operator triggers
stringop-overflow warning since r10-5451-gef29b12cfbb4979a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92395
Eero Tamminen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eerott at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48326|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90983
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 9.2.0
Summary|manual doc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90291
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85145
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94659
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94659
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
SO it's not terrible to get the key block cleaned up. but that's not
sufficient to resolve this issue. We all missed an important tidbit.
VRP is complaining about this:
ps.D.2041.s = &MEM [(void *)&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94645
--- Comment #8 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
The internal compiler error reduces to
struct unordered_map {
int cend() const noexcept;
};
template concept HasMapInterface = requires(a t) { t.cend(); };
template
requires HasMapInterface
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Working on it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #27 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #26)
> For what CPU did you configure GCC?
> With today's trunk I still see the same code as in comment #24.
>
> I can get the same code as you have in comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93956
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 48328
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48328&action=edit
Patch which sould create the right temporaries
Well, this should to the trick - at least fixes the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94700
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94700
Bug ID: 94700
Summary: ICE in forwprop when folding to a VEC_PERM_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #18 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > I've missed that. I'm afraid there is no way around missing sinl/cosl/tanl
> > etc.,
> > those aren't likely imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94665
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
replacing flag_unsafe_math_operations by flag_finite_math_only isn't correct,
but you can add it instead, i.e.
- if ((! FLOAT_MODE_P (mode) || flag_unsafe_math_optimizations)
+ if (!FLOAT_MODE_P (mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #16)
> Maybe they can be implemented like
>
> long double _gfortran_xyz (long double x)
> {
> __sorry_fortran_intrinsic_xyz_is_not_available_because_cosl_is_not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
>
> --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Thus, I think we can extend the patch I've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
--- Comment #27 from John David Anglin ---
This build on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 had a previous version of my float128
patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-April/559390.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Note a possibility would be to emit the packing/unpacking functions as
inline functions so whether inlining happens would be decided by the
middle-end inlining heuristics. That has the advantage of inlinin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48295|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thus, I think we can extend the patch I've attached (and fix the two fmaf to
fmal spots), plus do the HAVE_INLINE_BUILTIN_* in configure.ac either through a
config/math.m4 macro, or through a loop over the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94647
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 94647, which changed state.
Bug 94647 Summary: [10 Regression] bogus -Warray-bounds on strncpy into a
larger member array from a smaller array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94647
What|Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> I've missed that. I'm afraid there is no way around missing sinl/cosl/tanl
> etc.,
> those aren't likely implemented inline by the compiler. The only exceptio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've missed that. I'm afraid there is no way around missing sinl/cosl/tanl
etc.,
those aren't likely implemented inline by the compiler. The only exception
would be for targets where long double and double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94647
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3942060c4b3168307b9e2870d81e7ca15b49760a
commit r10-7854-g3942060c4b3168307b9e2870d81e7ca15b49760a
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #12 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 48326 [details]
> gcc10-pr94694.patch
>
> Completely untested full patch. Will try to test it on x86_64-linux where
> it hopefully shouldn't c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94586
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94514
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Szabolcs Nagy :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb22faf48f6eb518932f24005f8606e5f19a7304
commit r10-7853-gfb22faf48f6eb518932f24005f8606e5f19a7304
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
>
> --- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Fritz Reese from comment #8)
> I like this solution in principle but we would need to add fabsl, fmal, and
> copysignl, right? And then we are still left with the question: what do we
> do if HA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94685
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-21
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #10 from Andrea Corallo ---
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 48326
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachmen
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 48326
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48326&action=edit
> gcc10-pr94694.patch
>
> Completely untested full patch. Will tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94699
Bug ID: 94699
Summary: enhance -Wstring-compare to detect tautological or
mutually exclusive strcmp expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #25)
> This is affecting us on powerpc64 as well. It takes twice as long to build
> the spec2017 test cases with most of the difference in a few of the fortran
> compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48326&action=edit
gcc10-pr94694.patch
Completely untested full patch. Will try to test it on x86_64-linux where it
hopefully sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foreese at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #26 from Christophe Lyon ---
For what CPU did you configure GCC?
With today's trunk I still see the same code as in comment #24.
I can get the same code as you have in comment #25 if I force -mcpu=cortex-a9.
The bug report is about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94683
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I meant something like:
--- libgfortran/configure.ac.jj 2020-01-24 22:34:36.340641225 +0100
+++ libgfortran/configure.ac2020-04-21 18:03:02.494598615 +0200
@@ -392,6 +392,9 @@ GCC_CHECK_MATH_FUNC([cab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
...
> > Since Fortran isn't release critical the only P1-ish part is that fortran
> > build is enabled on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94690
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> EXPECTED: There is some diagnostic for free-form Fortran and for
> -Wline-truncation also for fixed-form Fortran source form.
That's fixed by the following patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94698
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94696
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b463ced59535fddeff90d697f869d58e444568fa
commit r8-10194-gb463ced59535fddeff90d697f869d58e444568fa
Author: Martin Jambor
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Note in another bug it was said that libgfortran requires a C99 runtime,
> when that's not available you should disable gfortran build. GCC (or
> libgfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94698
Bug ID: 94698
Summary: Improper French translation for "override"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94657
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #52 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #51
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94669
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||89863
See Also|https://gcc.gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94693
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #25 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry, I can not reproduce this. With today trunk I have for pr45701-1.c (-Os
-mthumb):
history_expand_line_internal:
@ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
@ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94645
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
As in PR94597, I think the testcases here in #c0 and #c2 might be invalid as-is
-- the requirement "t.cend;" should probably be "t.cend();", and we reject the
former since r10-7554.
With that minor change we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94697
Bug ID: 94697
Summary: aarch64: bti j at function start instead of bti c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94683
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85353e24ca90282e1d3620682841f524de20475c
commit r10-7851-g85353e24ca90282e1d3620682841f524de20475c
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
