https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101256
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
I managed reducing a test-case:
$ cat driver.cpp
#include
#include
template
const T& max(const T& a, const T& b)
{
return (a < b) ? b : a;
}
signed char var_5 = -128;
unsigned int var_11 = 21444792
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa
commit r12-1973-gc4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa
commit r12-1973-gc4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Component|tre
rking/./gcc/specs
COLLECT_GCC=/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../trunk.git/configure --prefix=/home/dcb/gcc/results.20210701
--disable-multilib --disable-werror --with-pkgversion=91c771ec8a3b6497
--enable-checking=df,extra,fold,rtl,yes --enabl
e-languages=c,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It might make sense to provide targets a means to opt-out of CTF/BTF support
and thus diagnose -gctf as unsupported on them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #50 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #49)
> Created attachment 51095 [details]
> C source code
>
> Command line is
>
> /home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/ -g -O3
> -march
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101275
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Rodgers ---
I did some more reading of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/n4878.pdf and it would
seem that you are not even guaranteed a deterministic ordering of the
application of binary_op on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101279
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210701 (experimental) [master revision
:b1f5e3e73:a688c284dd3848b6c4ea553035f0f9769fb4fbc9] (GCC)
$ cat mutant.c
typedef *a;
typedef struct {
struct {
struct {
struct {
struct {
struct {
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Bug ID: 101289
Summary: bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla
param
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177
--- Comment #2 from Harold Gutch ---
Created attachment 51098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51098&action=edit
revert the change of condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177
Harold Gutch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc_bugzilla at foobar dot
franken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2009-02/msg00408.html which was a
way forward for wrapv but there was not much work on it really since that year.
The work on this has a huge impact to the IR real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is one more function which should be the same:
int f0(int y)
{
const bool x = y % 100 == 0;
return (y & ((4 << (x * 2)) - 1)) != 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101288
Bug ID: 101288
Summary: Invalid instantiated redeclaration considered valid by
gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 101251 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101287
--- Comment #2 from Eligor Kadaf ---
Agree, and the link was incorrect, so there is a correct one:
https://godbolt.org/z/zEz8c7abM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-01
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101287
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The actual code is required though, as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs says:
template
struct C {
void f() { T x; }
void g() = delete;
};
C c; // OK, definition of C::f is not
instantia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101287
Bug ID: 101287
Summary: Implicite template specialization redefines member
function but compiles
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93308
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tested the second version of the patch; it does fix the bug I observed with
an assumed-rank array argument in a Fortran subroutine with C binding called
from C having lower bound 0 instead of 1.
refix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-1965-20210701145532-gb97486f465f-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20210701 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101255
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=40380
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If we do this for each class:
@class unique_ptr memory
and enable SHOW_INCLUDE_FILES=YES in the doxygen config, then we get this in
the docs for unique_ptr:
#include
It also seems to avoid the doxygen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100976
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> Or rather,
>
> int main()
> {
> constexpr const int &r = 42;
> static_assert(r == 42); // { dg-bogus "" }
> }
>
> [expr.const]/4.7 says that "a temporary o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #49 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 51095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51095&action=edit
C source code
Command line is
/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/ -g -O3 -mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101285
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE: tree |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #48 from Martin Liška ---
> -O3 fine. Looks like an march=bdver2 issue.
All right, so please attach me here the pre-processed source file. I tried
doing that myself (using -O3 -march=bdver2), but it was fine (for some reason).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101268
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
c.f. PR 40380 comment 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97001
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2ce64b53fa76a4c192fe51b2f6c5a863a3b1241
commit r12-1964-gf2ce64b53fa76a4c192fe51b2f6c5a863a3b1241
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101094
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-01
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51539
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #47 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #46)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #43)
> > Rebroken, this time during bootstrap, so much more serious.
>
> > I'll have a go at dropping the -O3 -ma
|RESOLVED
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It shows up in the latest docs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/a03925.html
But several other classes don't appear on the type traits page:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #8 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Pass split2 transforms
(insn 218 222 114 15 (set (reg/v:TI 10 %r10 [orig:87 a ] [87])
(reg/v:TI 18 %f4 [orig:87 a ] [87])) 1466 {movti}
(nil))
into
(insn 234 222 235 15 (set (r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100976
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101220
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
FTR I've committed fixes to binutils on the master and 2.36 branches. Although
I think this affects binutils 2.34 and later older branches of binutils are
no-longer maintained.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Indu Bhagat from comment #2)
> I see that .section directive needs a different semantic for Darwin. The
> DWARF debug_info section, for example, appears as:
>
> .section __DWARF,__debug_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
Indu Bhagat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibhagatgnu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101094
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a17c1663a96640874067988ffe36c1d06fb93a1
commit r11-8667-g3a17c1663a96640874067988ffe36c1d06fb93a1
Author: Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101094
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cdf4576b201aa81fd853b06242b16e4215ead5a9
commit r12-1961-gcdf4576b201aa81fd853b06242b16e4215ead5a9
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc8453012f75dc6dbd20bf3a94c4819a2bff46db
commit r12-1960-gcc8453012f75dc6dbd20bf3a94c4819a2bff46db
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #46 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #43)
> Rebroken, this time during bootstrap, so much more serious.
> I'll have a go at dropping the -O3 -march=native back downto
> -O2 and see what happens.
-O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56670
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
character(len=:), allocatable :: aa(:)
character(len=:), pointer :: pp(:)
allocate(character(len=5) :: aa(5), pp(5))
end
gives with gfortran -Wall
1 | character(len=:), allocatable :: aa(:)
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edafb35bdadf309ebb9d1eddc5549f9e1ad49c09
commit r12-1958-gedafb35bdadf309ebb9d1eddc5549f9e1ad49c09
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Jun 2 07:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edafb35bdadf309ebb9d1eddc5549f9e1ad49c09
commit r12-1958-gedafb35bdadf309ebb9d1eddc5549f9e1ad49c09
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Wed Jun 2 07:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Btw. moved to gdb bugzilla as
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28042.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #45 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #44)
> What CPU do you have?
AMD FX-8350.
> What -march=native expands to (-v argument).
bdver2
> Can you please attach the pre-processed source file.
I'll l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101285
Bug ID: 101285
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class
‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in
c_safe_arg_type_equiv_p, at c/c-typeck.c:5830
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
Yes, I've been working on it for a while, it's proving to be a bit tricky when
switching to HImode as suggested by Richard. I have something working, now
checking I haven't broken Neon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #11 from Alex Coplan ---
@Christophe: do you still plan to look at this? I'm happy to pick it up if not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71268
--- Comment #3 from Ismael Luceno ---
Ping. The issue is still valid. Is the revised patch acceptable? How can I
improve it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Good. So all is fine, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101265
Alan Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
Bug 101173 depends on bug 101280, which changed state.
Bug 101280 Summary: [12 Regression] TSVC s231 slower with -Ofast -march=znver1
since r12-1836-g0ad9d88a3d7170b3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
What|Remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101284
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I think this combination of options should result in an error. As we move away
from -mfpu to permitting only the 'auto' model, we are increasingly adding
'fpu' features that cannot be expressed via this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101284
Bug ID: 101284
Summary: conflicting arch/fpu result in unexpected preprocessor
defines
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
Bug ID: 101283
Summary: Severaal test fail on Darwin with -gctf
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a77c07b9b3fe83679358c3ef57721e09e2ad5fb
commit r12-1954-g0a77c07b9b3fe83679358c3ef57721e09e2ad5fb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a77c07b9b3fe83679358c3ef57721e09e2ad5fb
commit r12-1954-g0a77c07b9b3fe83679358c3ef57721e09e2ad5fb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
In the light of PR101280 I am now testing the following alternate fix for the
original problem, avoiding this regression:
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-loop-interchange.cc b/gcc/gimple-loop-interchange.cc
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101282
Bug ID: 101282
Summary: d: RHS value lost when a target_expr appears in a
cond_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Seems to be this one:
real_t s231(struct args_t * func_args)
{
//loop interchange
//loop with data dependency
initialise_arrays(__func__);
gettimeofday(&func_args->t1, NULL);
for (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94096
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101278
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Summary|[11/12 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101278
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a87605938428f6c4c62d5b92cfc183cd2b2554e
commit r12-1952-g4a87605938428f6c4c62d5b92cfc183cd2b2554e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3aaba68405751bae3f630669515b7ecdf77efa6
commit r12-1951-ga3aaba68405751bae3f630669515b7ecdf77efa6
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101273
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #0)
> It looks like fixing PR d/100882 introduced a small regression:
On further inspection, this is not the case. The front-end semantic pass
returns us code that uses a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101281
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96797
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96080
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/OpenACC/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101281
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
The main culprit is:
subroutine ar3 (xn) bind(C)
character(len=n) :: xn(:,:,:)
end
and I forgot to mention that 'n' is only implicitly defined - otherwise, there
is not ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101281
Bug ID: 101281
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE with -std=f2003/f2008 and
assumed-rank array
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280
Bug ID: 101280
Summary: [12 Regression] TSVC s231 slower with -Ofast
-march=znver1 since r12-1836-g0ad9d88a3d7170b3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87911
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For OpenMP, I think after the clarification it got fixed in
r9-3992-g81a227c6054a82118d80d3f4b2fffb44bc43aae2
There is still the fuzzy case whether #pragma omp declare reduction combiner
expression should all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87911
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
