I am sorry maybe I send this in a wrong place, I have sent this again in
gcc-bug-requ...@gcc.gun.org.
Haoxin Tu 于2020年6月30日周二 上午10:32写道：
> Hi, there,
>
> Our team just develop a c++ code generator tool to testing the compiler,
> and those days I have reported 13 ICE bugs in ice-on-invalid-bugs.
Hi, there,
Our team just develop a c++ code generator tool to testing the compiler,
and those days I have reported 13 ICE bugs in ice-on-invalid-bugs.
Here are the bugs links:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95972
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95956
https://gcc.gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95987
Bug ID: 95987
Summary: Another ice during GIMPLE pass: slp
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #12 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11)
> while(!a.isZero());
>
> that doesn't look like something you would find in real code. Are you
> waiti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95977
--- Comment #1 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Slightly simplified: https://godbolt.org/z/9unpTF.
```C++
struct X {
int* x{new int{42}};
constexpr ~X() { delete x; }
};
constexpr int f() { return *X{}.x; }
constexpr int z{f()};
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
while(!a.isZero());
that doesn't look like something you would find in real code. Are you waiting
for a different thread to modify a? Then you should use an atomic operation.
Are you waiting for the h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9bca676cc7a1670be021567ae4a128a5082229d3
commit r11-1721-g9bca676cc7a1670be021567ae4a128a5082229d3
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95978
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=95978
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:583812c2e2f3593823622b0a5821d957c832dbd0
commit r11-1720-g583812c2e2f3593823622b0a5821d957c832dbd0
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95883
--- Comment #4 from Timothee Besset ---
We are in the same situation; we are assessing a move to a newer gcc but we
need to maintain compatibility with older gcc, at least for the time being. We
would like to avoid having to use macros for all of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95743
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95cdcf701dad826f225d6413b59650f181954399
commit r11-1719-g95cdcf701dad826f225d6413b59650f181954399
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95883
Patrick Moran changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick.a.moran at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95978
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The obvious patch
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.c b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
index ac1f63f66e0..f38def4c291 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
@@ -728,7 +728,7 @@ gfc_match_data (v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95978
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 48810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48810&action=edit
tree-ssanames.ii.gz
Beware, gzippped file.
Repeat with /home/hp/combcheck/o0/./prev-gcc/cc1plus -fpreproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #10 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
I hope you do realize that the code I posted previously is equivalent, or very
close to being equivalent, to the following code:
struct President {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Can you provide a test case or a translation unit?
You're aware that the report is for bootstrap stage2 on a CompileFarm machine?
>From the look of it, somet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Because the version in bugzilla is set to 10.0, so I assumed it occurred there,
too.
Even better if it is not there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95978
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I don't see the ICE on a standard GCC11, but its instrumented version gives
../../work/gcc/fortran/simplify.c:127:10: runtime error: load of value
4294967295, which is not a valid value for type 'expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95743
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] bogus |[9/10/11 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn ---
Committed, but why gcc-10? I don't see the testcase on that branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95949
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95986
Bug ID: 95986
Summary: Partial specialization of class template is not found
when class template has NTTP of class type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #11)
> With the patch the testcase succeeds on both powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 (big
> endian) and powerpc64-linux (little endian)
OK for master and gcc-10 then (unless y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95857
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly simplified:
struct E { int e; };
int bar (void), baz (void);
void
foo (void)
{
struct E a = { 0 };
struct E i = { 0 };
if (baz ())
i.e = 1;
else
a.e = -2;
switch (a.e)
{
ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95302
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafael at espindo dot la
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #9 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Or you can use -fno-finite-loops option.
I am sorry, but I cannot trust this compiler not to force me again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
With the patch the testcase succeeds on both powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 (big
endian) and powerpc64-linux (little endian)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 48809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48809&action=edit
Updated regex for either endianness
The new patch updates the regexps to accept the result for either endiann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95981
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Or you can use -fno-finite-loops option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95985
Bug ID: 95985
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree_list,
have error_mark in common_handle_aligned_attribute, at
c-family/c-attribs.c:1980
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #7 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> All right, so it's caused by cdde1:
>
> Assume loop 1 to be finite: it has an exit and -ffinite-loops is on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn ---
This set of regexps works for me:
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump { \(\*var\.str2\)\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4} =
"(d\\x00\\x
00|\\x00\\x00\\x00d)"\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4};} "original" } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump { _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984
Bug ID: 95984
Summary: [11 Regression] Internal compiler error: Error
reporting routines re-entered. since
r11-1697-g75ff24e1920ea6b1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95982
--- Comment #2 from Bence Kodaj ---
Note: the ICE goes away if I remove the -Wall option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95982
Bence Kodaj changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://wandbox.org/permlin |https://godbolt.org/z/6BpK2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95983
Bug ID: 95983
Summary: `std::counted_iterator>>` fails to satisfy
`std::input_or_output_iterator`
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95982
Bug ID: 95982
Summary: ICE with non-type template parameter that is itself
the instantiation of a template
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail dot com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48804|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95981
Bug ID: 95981
Summary: ICE in gfc_find_array_ref(): No ref found
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's what it's saying. Unfortunately, the locations of null pointer
constants isn't available in the middle end so all we have left is the function
calls they're used in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980
Bug ID: 95980
Summary: ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95979
Bug ID: 95979
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in get_kind, at
fortran/simplify.c:129
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95978
Bug ID: 95978
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_data, at
fortran/decl.c:731
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89310
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
rldicr is one of the insns generated by "*rotl3_mask", which
recognises all canonical formulations of all our rotate-and-mask
instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
It uses . where it wants to consume a quotation mark (").
Because the BE/LE difference is flipping characters, would it negate the
purpose of the test to check for one or zero characters?
! { dg-final { sc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm having a hard time parsing the warning. It says
gcc/go/gofrontend/types.cc:1474:34: warning: ‘this’ pointer null [-Wnonnull]
The line is
return type->do_type_descriptor(gogo, NULL);
Is this tryi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95949
Julian Sikorski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48803|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
On second thought, I think the warning might be correct. The function it's
issued for is a static member of class Type (I at first thought it was
virtual):
Expression*
Type::type_descriptor(Gogo* gogo, Type*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95977
Bug ID: 95977
Summary: No deallocation of temporary in return-statement
during constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95949
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> > I can help you build a default32 gcc if just adding -m32 to your
> > compile doesn't ICE on the test case.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95949
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I think the warning is a false positive. The problem call is introduced by
early inlining and is eliminated by path isolation, but the -Wnonnull warning
code runs before that happens (by the post_ipa_warn pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> I can help you build a default32 gcc if just adding -m32 to your
> compile doesn't ICE on the test case.
I should mention, it's not as easy as just configuring w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95976
Bug ID: 95976
Summary: [[no_unique_address]] on union members has the
opposite-of-intended effect
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95975
Bug ID: 95975
Summary: -Wstrict-aliasing=1 false negative for std::pair
member at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95974
Bug ID: 95974
Summary: AArch64 arm_neon.h stores interfere with gimple
optimisations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95973
Bug ID: 95973
Summary: Add __cpuidex
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95972
Bug ID: 95972
Summary: ICE in check_member_template, at cp/decl2.c:570
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #3 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
Created attachment 48806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48806&action=edit
Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #1 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
Created attachment 48804
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48804&action=edit
a.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
--- Comment #2 from Jan Ziak (http://atom-symbol.net) <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b at gmail
dot com> ---
Created attachment 48805
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48805&action=edit
b.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95971
Bug ID: 95971
Summary: [10 regression] Optimizer converts a false boolean
value into a true boolean value
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95952
--- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt ---
Couldn't duplicate on P8/BE. I still have a couple builds going to see if I
can duplicate elsewhere.
I see "--with-cpu=default32 " in the config string. Is this an older hardware
platform?
thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95949
--- Comment #5 from Julian Sikorski ---
Created attachment 48803
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48803&action=edit
Preprocessed emumem.cpp source
Preprocessed source obtained with:
make SOURCES=src/mame/drivers/model1.cpp RE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
Bug ID: 95970
Summary: gcc/go/gofrontend/types.cc:1474:34: warning: ‘this’
pointer null
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95880
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95969
Bug ID: 95969
Summary: Use of __builtin_aarch64_im_lane_boundsi in AArch64
arm_neon.h interferes with gimple optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95340
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95340
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:687147abdfccc1b53adc9a2d31e419719f3deaab
commit r10-8390-g687147abdfccc1b53adc9a2d31e419719f3deaab
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95880
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3942f91376ba29a8014fd19f7719c5697ac05e8
commit r10-8389-ge3942f91376ba29a8014fd19f7719c5697ac05e8
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95968
Bug ID: 95968
Summary: error: 'args#0' is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95967
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 48802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48802&action=edit
6 constructor functions
This time with attachment -- not sure what happened last time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95967
Bug ID: 95967
Summary: Poor aarch64 vector constructor code when using
arm_neon.h
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95568
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95965
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94404
Bug 94404 depends on bug 94553, which changed state.
Bug 94553 Summary: Revise [basic.scope.declarative]/4.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94553
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94553
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94553
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54980635c537f3130481da2d8b1109c775db8bb0
commit r11-1714-g54980635c537f3130481da2d8b1109c775db8bb0
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95966
Bug ID: 95966
Summary: soft float operations are not tail called
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95568
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1005f553d3543bb56dc6b9b34ee35455d697ca4
commit r11-1713-gb1005f553d3543bb56dc6b9b34ee35455d697ca4
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95964
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> You could use fnspec attributes to improve things but of course open-coding
> those as GIMPLE is preferable (last resort is to "fold" the calls to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #24 from Anthony ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #23)
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020, prop_design at protonmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
> >
> > --- Comment #22 from Anthony ---
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
