https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95712
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Egorenkov ---
When i add the dependency in Makefile manually, then the parallel build works.
Regards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95712
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Egorenkov ---
Created attachment 48751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48751&action=edit
top gcc Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95712
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Egorenkov ---
$ make --version
GNU Make 4.1
Built for s390x-ibm-linux-gnu
In my top Makefile the dependecny on maybe-all-gcc is missing:
configure-target-libgcc:
...
I attached the top Makefile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
--- Comment #7 from Haoxin Tu ---
By the way, can you take a look at bug 95597 and bug 95659? I think GCC should
accept the first case and shouldn't miss the error message in the second code.
Those cases are different from this report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95735
Bug ID: 95735
Summary: ICE on invalid non-type template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95732
--- Comment #1 from Joseph C. Sible ---
Thinking about this a bit more, it's a win for performance even if we ignore
CET completely. In particular, it would let a single binary use retpolines only
on CPUs that have the Spectre vulnerabilities tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86441
Boris Kolpackov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.1.0 |10.1.0
--- Comment #2 from Boris Kolpa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95712
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95734
Bug ID: 95734
Summary: [11 regression] lots of ICEs after r11-1445
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
--- Comment #6 from Haoxin Tu ---
Hi, there.
I hold the view that the compiler should have good fault tolerance, which means
giving an input(even invalid), the compiler might emit appropriate error
message diagnostics so that we can fix them int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95733
Bug ID: 95733
Summary: Building on PowerPC 64 Tests Fail With GCC 11
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #16 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> I don't see the commit on the GCC 10 branch nor the GCC 8 branch. Master
> and GCC 9 are fixed though.
Will backport the 10 and 8, thanks for reminding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95732
Bug ID: 95732
Summary: Use CPU dispatching to support mixing -fcf-protection
with -mindirect-branch and -mfunction-return
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Garbage in, garbage out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95723
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: [[no_unique_address] |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95728
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95728
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94848
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61c896d84bdefbfffa7573a8af89119d4db7b3de
commit r10-8319-g61c896d84bdefbfffa7573a8af89119d4db7b3de
Author: Thomas Schwing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94848
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5864930754f63e2dcef9606f2514ae20e80f436e
commit r11-1466-g5864930754f63e2dcef9606f2514ae20e80f436e
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95731
Bug ID: 95731
Summary: Faiilure to optimize a >= 0 && b >= 0 to (a | b) >= 0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94540
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95730
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94540
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:632183ddcc8f3aead8b4fc63c4ab59a42ef9ad00
commit r11-1464-g632183ddcc8f3aead8b4fc63c4ab59a42ef9ad00
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95730
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Stubbs ---
GCN uses TImode for a few special purposes, but lacks real TImode support.
(Basically, it allows TImode loads and stores for the SLP fake vectorization,
and there's one instruction that needs two DImode valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95710
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95727
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
pragma poison actually does one step further, it poisons it during the
preprocessing stage. What you are proposing is slightly different.
It is more deprecated attribute but slightly different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95730
Bug ID: 95730
Summary: GCN offloading ICEs after commit
fe7ebef7fe4f9acb79658ed9db0749b07efc3105 "Add support
for __builtin_bswap128"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95729
Bug ID: 95729
Summary: Failure to optimize away certain returns when the
condition to reach them is a calculation that already
results in that value
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86349
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88443
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 86349, which changed state.
Bug 86349 Summary: diagnose string overflow for allocations of non-constant
sizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86349
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95712
Alexander Egorenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95088
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95088
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55838f7fbd6e0131c2cc38e0eb903551c7fd2401
commit r10-8316-g55838f7fbd6e0131c2cc38e0eb903551c7fd2401
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95728
Bug ID: 95728
Summary: [11 Regression] tree check: expected tree_list, have
error_mark in tsubst_copy_and_build, at cp/pt.c:19594
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95728
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95727
Bug ID: 95727
Summary: Add [[gnu::poison]] attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2)
> They mangle differently, and e.g.:
>
> void f(float32x4_t);
> void f(V);
>
> aren't ODR equivalent. But a lot of code relies on the GNU vector
> extensi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95687
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Updated / corrected patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054548.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #1)
> Does the aarch64 port expect __Float32x4_t type to be considered equivalent
> to the GNU vector type or not? If so, why use build_distinct_type_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95707
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66159
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66159
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d392babbeb6cb531ab8b1ec68fde9ffd36373a6e
commit r11-1459-gd392babbeb6cb531ab8b1ec68fde9ffd36373a6e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a31a8add56d49867c187d90b3a89e97634543c2
commit r11-1458-g4a31a8add56d49867c187d90b3a89e97634543c2
Author: Kaipeng Zhou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95722
James Y Knight changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foom at fuhm dot net
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Does the aarch64 port expect __Float32x4_t type to be considered equivalent to
the GNU vector type or not? If so, why use build_distinct_type_copy over
build_variant_type_copy? If not, they might want to se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95378
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726
Bug ID: 95726
Summary: ICE with aarch64 __Float32x4_t as template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95724
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Haoxin Tu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > For the next time, can you please add 'ice-on-invalid-code' keyword?
>
> I got it. So sorry for my mistake!
It's not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 48750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48750&action=edit
proposed patch (tests are running)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1bab254fd30c2b94a675b9057349fc80946375b1
commit r10-8315-g1bab254fd30c2b94a675b9057349fc80946375b1
Author: Marek Polacek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95724
--- Comment #2 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> For the next time, can you please add 'ice-on-invalid-code' keyword?
I got it. So sorry for my mistake!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
--- Comment #2 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> For the next time, can you please add 'ice-on-invalid-code' keyword?
Ok, so sorry it's my fault. But this is a diagnostic issue I think? I will add
"diagnostic" keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95723
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95724
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95723
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
Bug ID: 95725
Summary: Confusing error diagnostic in an invalid template
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95704
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
13 insns, but the longest chain is 4. As I said, not totally awful, and
much better than the branchy code (which does not predict well, for more
general inputs anyway).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
Lénárd Szolnoki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leni536 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95724
Bug ID: 95724
Summary: bogue error : "expected '{' before ')' token"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95723
Bug ID: 95723
Summary: GCC get confused while parsing a code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95718
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Kr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95704
--- Comment #5 from Jens Seifert ---
Power9 code is branchfree but not good at all.
_Z3shloy:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
addi 8,5,-64
subfic 6,5,63
srdi 10,3,1
li 7,0
sld 4,4,5
sld 5,3,5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #47 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
memcmp is using wider reading in glibc; strncmp does not use wider reading.
memcmp is using "void *" as arguments, while strncmp is "char *".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
>
> --- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer ---
> No idea, sorry. Is that the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
--- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer ---
No idea, sorry. Is that the problem? Supposed to be an error but on a
different line?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95722
Bug ID: 95722
Summary: libatomic crashes on __atomic_load of const object
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95704
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It no longer generates that rldicl in GCC 9 (or GCC 10).
You do get straight-line code already if you use -mcpu=power9, btw
(isel; and not totally awful code, but it isn't super of course).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 68093, which changed state.
Bug 68093 Summary: [concepts] friend function declarations that differ only by
constraints are rejected as redefinitions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68093
What|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68093
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE on |[10 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Would it be OK then to replace last arguments of functions with
__attribute__((sentinel)) from NULLs to nullptrs? I can make a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95508
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae2ebf011fec926e003645c33c07a03619ea216a
commit r11-1449-gae2ebf011fec926e003645c33c07a03619ea216a
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95716
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95716
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d2b0866d760f822c137b69f14d1c51fc760ce53
commit r11-1448-g4d2b0866d760f822c137b69f14d1c51fc760ce53
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95710
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95704
--- Comment #3 from Jens Seifert ---
GCC 8.3 generates:
_Z3shloy:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
addi 9,5,-64
cmpwi 7,9,0
blt 7,.L2
sld 4,3,9
li 3,0
blr
.p2align 4,,15
.L2:
srdi 9,3,1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE|[9/10 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95717
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0909f5858ad81e6d8b73fa6193be19cb5e6ed7b
commit r11-1447-gd0909f5858ad81e6d8b73fa6193be19cb5e6ed7b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95704
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95716
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48749
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48749&action=edit
gcc11-pr95699.patch
Untested patch to improve the minmax optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95717
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The bogus def is set via
if (scalar_loop != loop)
{
/* If we copied from SCALAR_LOOP rather than LOOP, SSA_NAMEs from
SCALAR_LOOP will have current_def set to SSA_NAMEs in the new_loop,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95720
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9efbb03616f556dcceabe364f734b5b11fb13587
commit r11-1446-g9efbb03616f556dcceabe364f734b5b11fb13587
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95721
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95721
Bug ID: 95721
Summary: [11 Regression] bootstrap failure on s390x-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I don't see why that should be considered a bug.
> All the tests are using __builtin_constant_p in a way that it wasn't
> designed for, where it changes the beh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
