https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98750
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98761
--- Comment #1 from Boris Kolpackov ---
Created attachment 50011
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50011&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98761
Bug ID: 98761
Summary: [modules] use of a module causes SIGSEGV at runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98753
--- Comment #4 from Christoph ---
Created attachment 50010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50010&action=edit
C++ file generated by Bison run with -E
Including all dependencies, created by GCC 11 with added -E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98742
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ab1abf3b82a3bcfff9b7bc596166fef6a0d83ab
commit r11-6810-g7ab1abf3b82a3bcfff9b7bc596166fef6a0d83ab
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98757
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c05cdfb3f6335d55226cef7917a783498aa41244
commit r11-6809-gc05cdfb3f6335d55226cef7917a783498aa41244
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98476
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c05cdfb3f6335d55226cef7917a783498aa41244
commit r11-6809-gc05cdfb3f6335d55226cef7917a783498aa41244
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98757
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98758
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target|powerpc64*-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98755
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98753
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is that we isolate a path that is impossible to take but on that
path we have p = &foo; free (p); and thus a "proved" mistake. But in
reality it is guarded by an effective if (false) condition. S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98760
--- Comment #1 from Boris Kolpackov ---
Created attachment 50009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50009&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98760
Bug ID: 98760
Summary: [modules] ICE in add_module_decl
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98753
Akim Demaille changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98759
Bug ID: 98759
Summary: arm cortex-r5 single precisions flotaing point
generation
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98758
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] ice in |[9/10/11 Regression] ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98065
--- Comment #4 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry, my patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/555906.html
could fix this, but below two of them is still pending for approval, I pinged
it 5 times since last Oct. @Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98266
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> A better one:
>
> // PR c++/98646
> // { dg-do compile }
> // { dg-options "-Wnonnull" }
>
> struct B {
> void foo();
> };
>
> struct D : B {
> void show()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b83604c75fee324cc4767d039178cba2fbbe017e
commit r11-6808-gb83604c75fee324cc4767d039178cba2fbbe017e
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98758
Bug ID: 98758
Summary: ice in lambda_matrix_right_hermite
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96511
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49996|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93759
--- Comment #7 from Roland Illig ---
Is there still something to do for this bug?
de.po looks good now, having "c-no-format" instead of "c-format".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98757
Bug ID: 98757
Summary: New test case gfortran.dg/gomp/is_device_ptr-2.f90 in
r11-6787 fails with excess error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98659
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98659
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b27f37f90cb66e277b734c605639e2f00a2e942
commit r11-6804-g2b27f37f90cb66e277b734c605639e2f00a2e942
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98756
Bug ID: 98756
Summary: Suspicious "(*this)." in mangled symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98687
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98664
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98687
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d89b00c095e99cd5cb6d3e05f30d3a61fa592000
commit r11-6802-gd89b00c095e99cd5cb6d3e05f30d3a61fa592000
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98664
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9693e255ee2536c6823640eba5d0163c2b401161
commit r11-6801-g9693e255ee2536c6823640eba5d0163c2b401161
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98755
Bug ID: 98755
Summary: [11 regression] r11-6755 causes failure in
g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/constexpr-var-1.C
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98754
--- Comment #3 from Eric Reischer ---
(Or some other more descriptive error indicating "gprbuild" was not found on
the path, rather than acting as though you have borked the command-line
options.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98754
--- Comment #2 from Eric Reischer ---
In that case, this is not a RESOLVED WONTFIX -- this is still open. The
documentation and output of "gnatmake --help" need to be updated to reflect the
fact this is no longer a valid command line option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29853c653245c37ed31b6abcc9799b534372e938
commit r11-6800-g29853c653245c37ed31b6abcc9799b534372e938
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58993
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29853c653245c37ed31b6abcc9799b534372e938
commit r11-6800-g29853c653245c37ed31b6abcc9799b534372e938
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98754
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98728
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #1)
> Maybe this bug should be split in two (or three) for each specific FAIL?
>
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> > With the switch to DWARF-5, two debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98754
Bug ID: 98754
Summary: gnatmake no longer recognizes -P option
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98753
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually Comment 3 test is unrelated to the original issue here. Comment 3
will be fixed by my PR98659 fix, but not the original issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I posted a patch for this which fixes this test too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98333
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93821
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98333
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c37f1d4081f5a19e39192d13e2a3acea13662e5a
commit r11-6799-gc37f1d4081f5a19e39192d13e2a3acea13662e5a
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98752
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> But if we can fix it, I'd think it would be worth an exception.
Given the fix would likely only affect C++20 code, I think that would be
reasonable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98752
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98752
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98530
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
sigh, not a broken header, it is a broken compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98753
Bug ID: 98753
Summary: -Wfree-nonheap-object on Bison generated code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640
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=91640
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9aa61202d2d2f54b3eca473f78b7494c1e67c3c0
commit r9-9190-g9aa61202d2d2f54b3eca473f78b7494c1e67c3c0
Author: Tobias Burnus
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> only >> 4 and << 8 shifts going on there.
The thing is here that -1 is being shifted. That's undefined, you likely want
to do shifting in an unsigned type and later cast to an unsigned type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98752
Bug ID: 98752
Summary: wrong "error: ‘this’ is not a constant expression"
with consteval constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98645
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
s/generations/generation/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751
Bug ID: 98751
Summary: libgccjit fails in DWARF 5 handling with
"`.Ldebug_loc2' is already defined" asm error
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98722
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> It happens for s390x target, so you will need to build a cross compiler with:
> --target=s390x-linux-gnu.
Thank you, Martin. I've reproduced it on s390x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98750
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
This looks like a ubsan or optimizer bug. I can't see a -ve shift in the
source:
HOST_WIDE_INT
bytes_in::wi ()
{
HOST_WIDE_INT v = 0;
if (const char *ptr = read (1))
{
v = *ptr & 0xff;
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 98624, which changed state.
Bug 98624 Summary: UBSAN: gcc/cp/module.cc:5895:29: runtime error: member call
on null pointer of type 'struct module_state'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e6f3ed47e5cb575819f8253e42313664b89b042
commit r11-6797-g6e6f3ed47e5cb575819f8253e42313664b89b042
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98722
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
It happens for s390x target, so you will need to build a cross compiler with:
--target=s390x-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98722
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry, I can not reproduce this on today trunk using reint.cpp test. I guess
it is x86-64. I am using the following configuration (meaning with enabled
checking)
/home/cygnus/vmakarov/build1/gcc-git/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98729
--- Comment #7 from Brecht Sanders
---
Adding flag `-gdwarf-4` to the above command still results in a file that won't
execute, see attached file `conftest-gdwarf-4.exe`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98729
--- Comment #6 from Brecht Sanders
---
Created attachment 50004
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50004&action=edit
test built with -gdwarf-4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98750
Bug ID: 98750
Summary: does not detect dead code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98731
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes the problem is that a bitset<2> uses the two least significant bits of an
unsigned long, so we want to hash a single byte. But we take the address of the
unsigned long and then hash the first byte. For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92932
Bug 92932 depends on bug 92294, which changed state.
Bug 92294 Summary: alias attribute generates incorrect code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a2a38620cf178b53b217051f32d1d7bbba86fc9
commit r11-6796-g6a2a38620cf178b53b217051f32d1d7bbba86fc9
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Will Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04cdb132020733bedc36d14d61cce4246b8bbe4c
commit r11-6795-g04cdb132020733bedc36d14d61cce4246b8bbe4c
Author: Will Schmidt
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #17 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #15)
> I see, so it's a real issue and I support the workaround mentioned in
> Comment 10.
> Please send it to the mailing list.
Patch posted:
https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #16 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #14)
> I just ran into the same problem, with a slightly different testcase:
This is a better one to reproduce the issue, thanks! I verified the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89381
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86494
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Drat sorry, meant to write PR89381..
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89381 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89831
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86494
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60531
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86302
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98355
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I had stated my intent in the initial submission to complete the C++ support in
a followup patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2018-November/510455.html
Jason approved the initial patch with an e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97679
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.3.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #13 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IIUC, the issue comes from the following mismatch in cl_optimization_compare:
if (ptr1->x_arm_fp16_format != ptr2->x_arm_fp16_format)
internal_error ("% are modified in local contex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636
--- Comment #12 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 50003
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50003&action=edit
options-save.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98738
--- Comment #6 from Kwok Yeung ---
It seems to be the '#pragma omp taskwait' inside the parallel region that is
causing the intermittent hang - if you add it to task-detach-5.c, the hang also
happens there (i.e. the target construct is not the pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #3)
> Oh, I see what you mean.
>
> FWIW this is the tip of a deceptively simple, but actually complex, iceberg.
[for Darwin] These tests were working on the modules br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98699
--- Comment #3 from Bill Long ---
Thanks, Tobias. GCC 11 should be fine. Great to see you back.
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo