https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100762
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82625a42e652d52fc6bbe6070f8d0589d5e0c8ad
commit r12-2183-g82625a42e652d52fc6bbe6070f8d0589d5e0c8ad
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Fri Jun 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100760
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82625a42e652d52fc6bbe6070f8d0589d5e0c8ad
commit r12-2183-g82625a42e652d52fc6bbe6070f8d0589d5e0c8ad
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Fri Jun 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100761
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82625a42e652d52fc6bbe6070f8d0589d5e0c8ad
commit r12-2183-g82625a42e652d52fc6bbe6070f8d0589d5e0c8ad
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Fri Jun 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101277
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Way ---
Thank you Richard. I'm glad this was fixed in 10.3 and later. Unfortunately the
latest arm-none-eabi-gcc toolchain is based on 10.2, but that's out of the GCC
maintainers' purview.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #15 from LIU Hao ---
I have bootstrapped GCC 11.1.1 on both {x86_64,i686}-w64-mingw32 and seen no
problem so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95681
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey H. Johnson ---
Confirm this behavior and reached same analysis with gcc version 11.1.1
20210531 (Red Hat 11.1.1-3) on x86_64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced more:
struct A {
int i;
};
struct B {
A a{};
constexpr B() : a() {}
constexpr B(const B &rhs) : a(rhs.a) {}
};
struct C {
B arr[1];
};
constexpr C
fn ()
{
C c{};
return c;
}
C c = fn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101382
Bug ID: 101382
Summary: function declarations with identical asm label
aliasing a target function does not compile with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101381
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101381
Bug ID: 101381
Summary: [12 regression] missing warning in
g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C after r12-2132
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 101372, which changed state.
Bug 101372 Summary: [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds in gcc/cp/module.cc causing
bootstrap failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Summary|[12 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79d3378c7d73814442eb468c562ab8aa572f9c43
commit r12-2178-g79d3378c7d73814442eb468c562ab8aa572f9c43
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Christophe, does this patch work for you? Another alternative is to add
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored around the dereference.
diff --git a/libatomic/config/linux/arm/host-config.h
b/libatomic/config/linux/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
On powerpc64-linux the failure is
In file included from /home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/c-family/c-common.h:26,
from /home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h:40,
from /home/segh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the confirmation!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 100451, which changed state.
Bug 100451 Summary: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-7-8
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c232f07b931e3e4cb7cbd96e47b161f1c390f21d
commit r12-2176-gc232f07b931e3e4cb7cbd96e47b161f1c390f21d
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Bug 100409 depends on bug 101087, which changed state.
Bug 101087 Summary: [9 Regression] Unevaluated operand of sizeof affects
noexcept operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:879e7df182910886789aaac493efb0bc31ab0982
commit r10-9972-g879e7df182910886789aaac493efb0bc31ab0982
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101315
--- Comment #1 from janpmoeller at gmx dot de ---
Just for reference, the clang bug report is
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51032.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cbef732522568f8adce46c472b16391c864d0fd0
commit r11-8709-gcbef732522568f8adce46c472b16391c864d0fd0
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101087
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dee00bf6894be0cabb8f263c993357a6f8444f8b
commit r12-2174-gdee00bf6894be0cabb8f263c993357a6f8444f8b
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
Patrick McGehearty changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick.mcgehearty at oracle
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #11)
> r12-2171 unblocks bootstrap on x86_64.
My bootstrap on powerpc64le-linux completes now too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101246
--- Comment #5 from Lance Fredrickson ---
Just to check another architecture, I tried building gccgo-11 for x86_64 and
uclibc-ng. With gcc-11 I get the same build-time error with x86_64 as I did
with arm.
gccgo-10 for x86_64 & uclibc-ng did b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
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=101379
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101305
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (force gcc to avoid xorw memory, %hireg and instead use movzwl memory,
> %sireg; ... xorl %sireg, %sireg2) and p2 was something similar for *xorqi_1.
>
> Looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mckelvey at maskull dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101066
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:763121ccd908f52bc666f277ea2cf42110b3aad9
commit r12-2172-g763121ccd908f52bc666f277ea2cf42110b3aad9
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9bf9f27ac6db4823628c435da9b242fd82bf8d68
commit r12-2171-g9bf9f27ac6db4823628c435da9b242fd82bf8d68
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I will try rebuilding tomorrow (~11hrs later).
OK, thanks in advance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33699
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101378
--- Comment #1 from Simon Marchi ---
I bisected, it started with:
libstdc++: Remove inheritance from elements in std::tuple
91e6226f880b048275a7ceedef716e159c7cefd9
So it's likely related to the use of [[no_unique_address]].
Relevant thread o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98939
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57314
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=101377
--- Comment #12 from LIU Hao ---
I will try rebuilding tomorrow (~11hrs later).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101369
--- Comment #4 from James McKelvey ---
Probably duplicate of 101377 for 11.1.1. I see error for 11 and 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 51119
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51119&action=edit
Tentative fix
This is a minimal fix to restore the previous state on Windows (I don't think
that a more compl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
For the test case the warning sees this:
int varpool_node::_ZN12varpool_node16get_availabilityEv.part.0 (struct
varpool_node * const this)
{
...
struct symtab_node * _7;
struct varpool_node * _12;
..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #8 from LIU Hao ---
lh_mouse@lhmouse-pc ~ $ /mingw64/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin/as --version
GNU assembler (GNU Binutils) 2.36.1
Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Of course.
Thanks. There are weird things in the log, for example:
configure:29292: checking assembler for assembly of compiler generated 64-bit
.debug_line
configure:29306: /mingw64/x86_64-w64-mingw32/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Does that mean C++ should default to -fdelete-dead-exceptions?
That makes sense. The C++ standard has nothing to say about this, since
pure/const are extens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101380
Bug ID: 101380
Summary: Segmentation fault in __asan_init
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #6 from Liu Hao ---
Created attachment 51118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51118&action=edit
gzip'd gcc/config.log
Of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> configure said 'yes' for 'broken dwarf5 support'. I am not quite clear
> whether this means whether it is broken or not (but I suspect yes):
Yes, it's indeed broken as expected. Out of curiosity, can you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
Bug ID: 101379
Summary: libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
The ICE started with r247813.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101378
Bug ID: 101378
Summary: Negative DW_AT_data_member_location
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #13)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > - if (! TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (expr))
> > + if (! TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (expr) && expr_noexcept_p (expr, 0))
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
--- Comment #4 from Liu Hao ---
configure said 'yes' for 'broken dwarf5 support'. I am not quite clear whether
this means whether it is broken or not (but I suspect yes):
```
configure:29798: checking linker PT_GNU_EH_FRAME support
configure:29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> - if (! TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (expr))
> + if (! TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (expr) && expr_noexcept_p (expr, 0))
> expr = void_node;
The assumption that an expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101371
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101366
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101375
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
The same is true when targeting more "natural" options for arm-eabi:
-mthumb/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7e-m+fp/-mfpu=auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101377
Bug ID: 101377
Summary: 'exec format error' on x86_64-w64-mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: boot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40210
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c619132b3f14dc5e672a7f2f0e09cb784193559
commit r12-2137-g4c619132b3f14dc5e672a7f2f0e09cb784193559
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101376
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100637
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:663a014e77709bfbd4145c605b178169eaf334fc
commit r12-2136-g663a014e77709bfbd4145c605b178169eaf334fc
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||101087
--- Comment #11 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
yes revering r12-2132 does indeed fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Little bit less undefined - reconstructed the original symtab_node *ref
argument of get_availability. Maybe we're confused about the upcast to
varpool_node?
template struct reinterpret_is_a_helper {
te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The following fails with -O2 -Wall -Werror after but not before the rev. - not
sure if the reduction is otherwise sensible.
template struct reinterpret_is_a_helper {
template static T cast(U p) { retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Jason, any idea?
diff --git a/gcc/cp/except.c b/gcc/cp/except.c
index a8cea53cf91..cbc94dff790 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/except.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/except.c
@@ -1050,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> It has been consensus that throwing exceptions and const/pure are different
> concepts that co-exist. See for example the recent discussion at
> https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101376
Bug ID: 101376
Summary: Missing
Wsuggest-attribute=const/Wsuggest-attribute=pure for
throwing functions, wrong Wattributes for pure/const
throwing functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I'm reducing a testcase for the varpool.c warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101375
Bug ID: 101375
Summary: arm: Adding -mfpu=auto makes many tests unsupported
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #4)
> The documentation for the pure attribute refers to "functions that have no
> observable effects on the state of the program other than to return a value"
> wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51116&action=edit
patch I was testing
I was testing this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, doesn't quite work.
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/sfinae19.C -std=c++14 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/sfinae22.C -std=c++14 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1y/pr61636-2.C -std=c++14 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Reverting g:a110855667782dac7b674d3e328b253b3b3c919b gets me past this failure
point.
I'll note the printed location is bogus as well, it points to
/* Return variable availability. See cgraph.h for descr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Bug ID: 101374
Summary: [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19:
error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly
outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
