https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98210
Bug ID: 98210
Summary: SHF_GNU_RETAIN breaks gold linker generated binaries
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98019
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c3a63fb3854392af65a191154e3586e7f5a1066e
commit r11-5873-gc3a63fb3854392af65a191154e3586e7f5a1066e
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59238
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4eb28483004f8291c1f17df3b242716a5151c180
commit r11-5872-g4eb28483004f8291c1f17df3b242716a5151c180
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:28:49AM +, dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
>
> --- Comment #13 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
> Ok, I have objdump,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #2 from jamesgua at ca dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 49709
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49709&action=edit
preprocessed src file gcc -E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #13 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
Ok, I have objdump, and the .exe file. What switch options do I need to use in
objdump?
thanks
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide the preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
Ilya Leoshkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at acm dot org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98191
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab3a5ff07cd7f7101ac6f7f0635c485aad73f47e
commit r11-5870-gab3a5ff07cd7f7101ac6f7f0635c485aad73f47e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98020
Jens Seifert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98020
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98198
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
This simple patch avoids the ICE:
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c b/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c
index 1d2ab7c..8847932 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.c
@@ -767,6 +767
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98167
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> We already handle IX86_BUILTIN_SHUFPD there but not IX86_BUILTIN_SHUFPS for
> some reason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-May/521983.html
I was ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
The fix looks safe to backport; it isn't a regression, but the number of
duplicate reports argue for making an exception.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98103
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE tree |[10 Regression] ICE tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98103
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0221c656bbe5b4ab54e784df3b109c60cb27e5b6
commit r11-5869-g0221c656bbe5b4ab54e784df3b109c60cb27e5b6
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98043
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97634
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98043
--- Comment #9 from Ben Wiederhake ---
I totally forgot to say it:
Thanks for fixing it so quickly! :D
When I saw https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97634 I was afraid it
would suffer a slow death – but nope, fixed within a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dpozar from comment #11)
> Thomas,
>
> that looks good. But I am not sure how to proceed ...
>
> dave
Well, the first thing to do is to use either nm or objdump on the
executable cr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209
Bug ID: 98209
Summary: printf failed with O1 or above
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98206
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
The following enables the warning for the test case reported in comment #0 (and
all libstdc++ code):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561378.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98166
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98160
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #11 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
Thomas,
that looks good. But I am not sure how to proceed ...
dave
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:27 PM
To: David Pozar
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98208
Bug ID: 98208
Summary: make check's check-fixincludes fails in sys/types.h
around AIX_PHYSADR_T_CHECK
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98198
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
The current master is still affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98198
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Can you check with gcc trunk?
There were recent fixes in the handling of noinit/persistent attribute:
g:762ca20364a590be2cb9c79c0101ccbff74b5de1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98207
--- Comment #4 from Paul Ramsey ---
Thanks for the pointer!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96299
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96299
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ed1dc1275bba89af92bfc7d97c21b376e4c29c3
commit r11-5866-g4ed1dc1275bba89af92bfc7d97c21b376e4c29c3
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98207
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The default is to use fused multiple add.
> If you don't want to use FMA, then use -ffp-contract=off (the default =fast).
>
>
> x84_64 by default does not have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98203
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ICE in |[11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98182
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98207
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98182
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f7251a2c103bc48775cb9726a4bebeaebde96684
commit r11-5863-gf7251a2c103bc48775cb9726a4bebeaebde96684
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98198
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98204
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Summary|ICE in pointe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98207
--- Comment #1 from Paul Ramsey ---
Created attachment 49708
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49708&action=edit
Test program temp files built with O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98207
Bug ID: 98207
Summary: ARM64 IEEE math results change with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98189
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
May I please remind this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|`std::numeric_limits::qu |constant folding of NaN
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98206
--- Comment #1 from Roland B ---
Here is the actual error message:
// -
example.cpp:16:49: runtime error: reference binding to misaligned address
0x7ffdc34cab61 for type 'const struct X', which requires 8 byte alignment
0x7ffdc34cab61: note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98206
Bug ID: 98206
Summary: UBSan: Casting from multiple inheritance base to
derived class triggers undefined behavior sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
I don't have a working mingw system myself, but I dusted off my cygwin
system for this, using their cross-compiler to mingw.
With
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-gfortran.exe -static -static-libgfortran csqrt.f90
th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps some of those checks on the other side are redundant and could be
turned e.g. into gcc_checking_assert of gcc_assert, I bet if the MEM_REF
doesn't overwrite all bits, but only some subset of them, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #9 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
Thomas,
when I run your code with gcc from command line, I still do not see any output
(no errors, but no output). Tried with both c and c++. I am not an expert at C,
and actually I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, do we need to special case MEM_REF stores that store all bits (i.e. bitpos
0 bitsize equal to mode bitsize) into non-MEM variables which are promoted?
Something like:
--- gcc/expr.c.jj 2020-12-02 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97965
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/560463.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/560515.html
are some mails on the topic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97965
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
See also PR88683 and PR88173.
I notice that the match.pd REAL_CST patterns starting around line 4045 only
look at the RHS of the comparison, so that nan > inf is handled very
differently from inf < nan. And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98203
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-08
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to dpozar from comment #6)
> Thomas,
> I am running that code in code blocks with MS visual C++ 2010, but I can't
> find the output - no console screen, and no output file that I can find.
What if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66791
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Prathamesh Kulkarni
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0ed52d3e0044630b57a2145be78de199539d995
commit r11-5858-gc0ed52d3e0044630b57a2145be78de199539d995
Author: Prathamesh Kulkarni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98205
Bug ID: 98205
Summary: ICE in expand_omp_for_generic, at omp-expand.c:4307
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98204
Bug ID: 98204
Summary: ICE in pointer_diff, at c/c-typeck.c:3954
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
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=98203
Bug ID: 98203
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at
fortran/trans-openmp.c:4665
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97920
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92469
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 98194 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98194
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #6 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
Thomas,
I am running that code in code blocks with MS visual C++ 2010, but I can't find
the output - no console screen, and no output file that I can find.
dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Corallo ---
"akrl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #1 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Hi all,
>
> I can't reproduce this on current maste
"akrl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #1 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Hi all,
>
> I can't reproduce this on current master (76a1719f0ff), I guess has been
> fixed in the meanwhile?
As not said I swapped two repr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
--- Comment #1 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi all,
I can't reproduce this on current master (76a1719f0ff), I guess has been
fixed in the meanwhile?
Andrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
What is the output of
#include
#include
int main()
{
_Complex float z, sq, sq2;
int n;
float a;
a = -1.;
for (n = 1; n < 10; n++)
{
a = a * 10;
z = a + _Complex_I * 1.0;
sq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #4 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
Thomas,
the output for gfortran -v is:
c:\MinGW>gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=c:/mingw/bin/../libexec/gcc/mingw32/9.2.0/lto-wrapper.exe
Target: ming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
--- Comment #3 from dpozar at ecs dot umass.edu ---
Thomas,
compile time works fine; runtime not so good.
dave
Output below:
Runtime
Argument SquareRoot
SR squared
(-.1000E+02 0.10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98189
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Unfortunately, I can't reproduce that with a cross compiler.
Hmm, that's a pity.
Just tried with the latest snapshot we have in Debian, same result:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mingw
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm pretty sure it started with
r11-5704-g896048cf43d5eb21ab7c16553bb9d13b0f890b81
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98202
Bug ID: 98202
Summary: C++ cannot parse F128 suffix for float128 literals
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, yeah, apologies: looks like I messed up the bisect here, scratch that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> struct b {
> long a;
> short d;
> int c;
> int f;
> int e;
> int g;
> };
> struct h {
> int a;
> int i;
> short j;
> struct b k;
> signed : 20;
> int e;
> int g;
> } __attribute__(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94440
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e401db7bfd8cf86d3833805a81b1252884eb1c9d
commit r11-5855-ge401db7bfd8cf86d3833805a81b1252884eb1c9d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98201
Bug ID: 98201
Summary: CSQRT function gives bad resuts at runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98200
Bug ID: 98200
Summary: [GIMPLE FE] ICE with parsing ternary expr with
-fgimple
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97141
--- Comment #1 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi all,
this is so far my understanding of what is going on here:
While in expand the vector builder is trying to build to determine elt number 3
of a vector of POLY_INT_CST.
To do that the step h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-08
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97653
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This was committed, but with the wrong PR number so didn't get added here:
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f1a6501994a2d18ec4fe2a6664637f48021b210
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98199
Bug ID: 98199
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: Aborted (stack smashing detected)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC 11.0 miscompiles code |[11 Regression] GCC11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98087
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We often (but not always) treat it as regression because compilation of random
garbage code (that happens to include the newly added builtin) didn't ICE
before and now ICEs. A different case is when one need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98087
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think this should really be considered a regression, the built-in
didn't exist in older versions. It's a bug in a new feature, not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
@Martin: I originally saw the issue with a testcase generated by YARPGen
(https://github.com/intel/yarpgen), but this only hit the bug with LTO.
I reduced that with cvise and then manually tweaked the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98197
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see how this can be considered a regression, the built-in didn't exist
in older versions. It's a bug in a new feature, not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98198
Bug ID: 98198
Summary: [11 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check:
expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark)
in decl_or_type_attrs
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Component|tree-optimizati
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
