https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
--- Comment #8 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks!
Related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/q/67280884/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102635
Bug ID: 102635
Summary: Wrong rejection of function default argument value
depending on argument name
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101761
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Backport to gcc-11 needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101057
Bug 101057 depends on bug 102605, which changed state.
Bug 102605 Summary: address instruction from -fdump-tree-*-gimple doesn't work
with -fgimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102600
--- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
A workaround:
```C++
export using byte = // Workaround GCC bug 102600.
#if not defined(NDEBUG) or (defined(__clang__) or not defined(__GNUC__))
std::byte;
#else
unsigned char;
#endif
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Section 25.8. Using FS and GS segments in user space applications in
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/x86/x86_64/fsgs.html makes it sound like
null might be a valid address in a named address space. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102230
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #20 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98442
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101804
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
A test case is below. Warnings for accesses at address zero are intentionally
suppressed (to avoid false positives for unreachable code) but they are issued
for accesses at nonzero offsets from null because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102634
Bug ID: 102634
Summary: Optimization in dom2 pass makes wrong signed integer
overflow inference
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|warning for |[11/12 Regression] warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Bug ID: 102633
Summary: warning for self-initialization despite -Wno-init-self
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56659
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Paul from comment #5)
> Just tried all versions of gfortran available up to 10.2.0: the very same
> 'internal compiler error' is still reported using the initial reproducer.
Can you share the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61355
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Patrick McGehearty from comment #13)
> I may be mistaken about the source of the issue being glibc.
> Perhaps it is a system include file issue? Here are some
> more details.
>
> Here are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60009
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102632
Bug ID: 102632
Summary: Missing AM_CCASFLAGS in libsanitizer Makefile.am
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
If the warning is keeping Glibc from building with GCC 12 then applying the
patch until this is resolved (hopefully still in stage 1, or in stage 3) seems
like a reasonable workaround. It wouldn't be the fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
--- Comment #13 from Patrick McGehearty
---
I may be mistaken about the source of the issue being glibc.
Perhaps it is a system include file issue? Here are some
more details.
Here are some of the error messages I got when building with
__LIBG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Since we concluded this was a GCC bug, rather than an unavoidable
limitation of the warning, suppressing it in glibc seems inappropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> Created attachment 51562 [details]
> similar problem on aarch64 bootstrap
$ ./cc1plus calls-aarch64.ii -O2 -quiet -Wall
In function ‘void mark_stack_region_us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 51562
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51562&action=edit
similar problem on aarch64 bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102192
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
$ ./cc1 team.i -O2 -quiet -Wall
/home/aldyh/src/gcc/libgomp/team.c: In function ‘gomp_team_start’:
/home/aldyh/src/gcc/libgomp/team.c:315:34: warning: ‘start_data’ may be used
uninitialized in this function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102631
Bug ID: 102631
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized cannot see through a series of
PHIs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Patrick McGehearty from comment #8)
> My challenge is that the very old glibc on gcc135.fsffrance.org
> does not know about _TF_ vs _KF_ and _IF_. It refused to
> build the new libgcc/conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Bug ID: 102630
Summary: [12 Regression] Spurious -Warray-bounds with named
address space
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #22)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> > Created attachment 51559 [details]
> > The new v3 patch
> >
> > The new v3 patch to check invalid mask.
>
> v3? We wer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #22 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> Created attachment 51559 [details]
> The new v3 patch
>
> The new v3 patch to check invalid mask.
v3? We were already up to v6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51558|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #20 from Thiago Macieira ---
And:
$ cat /tmp/test.cpp
#include
bool tbit(std::atomic &i)
{
return i.fetch_xor(CONSTANT, std::memory_order_relaxed) & (CONSTANT);
}
$ ~/dev/gcc/bin/gcc "-DCONSTANT=(1LL<<63)" -S -o - -O2 /tmp/test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102629
Bug ID: 102629
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have
decltype_type in lookup_base, at cp/search.c:233
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90556
Bug 90556 depends on bug 90735, which changed state.
Bug 90735 Summary: missing location in -Wreturn-local-addr on a function with
two return statements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90735
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90735
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
Avi Kivity changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@cloudius-systems.com
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
--- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor ---
GCC 12 has changed to point the warning at the closing curly as suggested in
pr90735 so its output now looks like this:
pr93644.c: In function ‘careadlinkat’:
pr93644.c:30:1: warning: function may return add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102581
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually, this is shorter patch - we already should notice that one
range is contained in other, but we give up too early.
Honza
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h b/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h
index 6a9ed5ce54b..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102543
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Caused by
commit 001e73373e6d2e7c756141e0d7ac8e24ae1574ad
Author: Sergey Shalnov
Date: Thu Feb 8 23:31:15 2018 +0100
re PR target/83008 ([performance] Is it better to avoid extra instructions
in da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102628
Bug ID: 102628
Summary: [12 regression] New test case
libgomp.c-c++-common/alloc-9.c fails after its
introduction in r12-4033
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102474
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
may be dup of PR102581 (where I attached fix I am testing)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102581
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
the problem is that we assume that merge is symmetric (merging a to b
succeeds if and only if merging b to a succeeds). There was one
symetrical path missing in the (fancy and bit ugly) logic on what we ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98257
Jason McCampbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonm at cadence dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
:1-1 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102547
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95567
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Does :1-1 fail? In which case it's definitely the first thread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 98486, which changed state.
Bug 98486 Summary: Variable template specialization doesn't account for
primary's constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102163
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10 Regression]
|std:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101883
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102547
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aef951f1aa0b50a8da12f6fe6e80f3fdaa4d98e
commit r11-9086-g1aef951f1aa0b50a8da12f6fe6e80f3fdaa4d98e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102535
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d80c0e4584acc204ca9a2f8880ad455fef48371f
commit r11-9085-gd80c0e4584acc204ca9a2f8880ad455fef48371f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95567
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e84436a273f0fbb42b9785ff5bb1deaf9a500f37
commit r11-9084-ge84436a273f0fbb42b9785ff5bb1deaf9a500f37
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98216
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
commit r11-9083-g1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
commit r11-9083-g1682576e62d41cd761472943372b83aee514254a
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102412
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a411459b73b65d8a1235a16d6e2aac4eed17338
commit r11-9082-g5a411459b73b65d8a1235a16d6e2aac4eed17338
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98486
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:729cf2ea979f396e706625b1669087d5920b8c2a
commit r11-9081-g729cf2ea979f396e706625b1669087d5920b8c2a
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102163
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59c6831682dfa8bec2b5a62bdc85739924970808
commit r11-9080-g59c6831682dfa8bec2b5a62bdc85739924970808
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
commit r11-9079-gdc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101803
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
commit r11-9079-gdc867191914eff2993312fc25c48db4b7c6289e9
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101883
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52dd840c5eba25ef54dee3f1c78f371032a7c051
commit r11-9078-g52dd840c5eba25ef54dee3f1c78f371032a7c051
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102198
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
1. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:19 passes.
2. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:20 fails.
3. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:1-20 fails.
4. -fdbg-cnt=registered_jump_thread:2-20 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102611
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> > Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> > play?
>
> -fno-thread-jumps fixes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> > Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> > play?
>
> -fno-thread-jumps fixes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Can you try with -fno-thread-jumps to make sure its really the threader at
> play?
-fno-thread-jumps fixes the bug.
> If so, you could try to narrow it down to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > Here is a slightly more reduced testcase (without the reasonable val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
1. Need large model crtbegin*.o and crtend*.o.
2. Need large mode libgcc.a, libgcc_eh.a and libgcov.a.
3. Need large mode lib*.a if we want to link with lib*.a
4. Need the large model libc.a if we want to support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102625
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96339
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98056
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #13)
> In current master (90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294), we don't ICE,
> but instead get this error:
>
> coroutine-initializer-list.cc: In member function ‘tas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56659
--- Comment #5 from Paul ---
Just tried all versions of gfortran available up to 10.2.0: the very same
'internal compiler error' is still reported using the initial reproducer.
May that be connected to the old Linux we're using (CentOS 7.8)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98056
--- Comment #13 from Avi Kivity ---
In current master (90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294), we don't ICE, but
instead get this error:
coroutine-initializer-list.cc: In member function ‘task task::e()’:
coroutine-initializer-list.cc:23:3: e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The assembly difference r11-8007 to r11-8008 is:
--- pr102627.s 2021-10-06 06:32:46.0 -0400
+++ pr102627.s 2021-10-06 06:33:00.0 -0400
@@ -77,10 +77,10 @@ main:
movq%rdx, %rcx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
m.cencora at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.cencora at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-06
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Workaround committed, so for OpenMP it shouldn't trigger anymore.
But for
int
foo (char *p)
{
long double l = 0.0;
__builtin_clear_padding (&l);
return __builtin_memcpy (&l, p, sizeof (l));
}
it still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Even with plain -O1 I see the wrong 0 result, -O0 and -O2 are fine. Testcase
that aborts:
int a, f, l, m, q, c, d, g;
long b, e;
struct g {
signed h;
signed i;
unsigned j;
unsigned k;
};
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102605
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294
commit r12-4208-g90c3a62272313bb08cd5d9a948ff2d71af73b294
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 102612, which changed state.
Bug 102612 Summary: [C++23] P2242R3 - Non-literal variables (and labels and
gotos) in constexpr functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102624
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102571
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba837323dbda2bca5a1c8a4c78092a88241dcfa3
commit r12-4207-gba837323dbda2bca5a1c8a4c78092a88241dcfa3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
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=102621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
