https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101912
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, eggert at cs dot ucla.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101912
>
> --- Comment #4 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #11 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
+(define_insn_and_split "*anddi3_insn_dot"
+ [(set (pc)
+(if_then_else (eq (and:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "gpc_reg_operand" "%r,r")
+ (match_operand:DI 2 "const_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103274
--- Comment #11 from Martin Storsjö ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> Thanks for reporting the problem.
Thanks for the fix! I can confirm that the version of the patch backported on
the gcc-10 branch fixes the testcase at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103514
--- Comment #2 from Navid Rahimi ---
Exactly. Actually in my final version I had it with single loop, but didn't
know I can remove the condition too. Thanks Andrew.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103514
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the loop should be:
(for first_op (bit_xor eq )
second_op (eq bit_xor)
(simplify
(first_op:c (bit_and:c truth_valued_p@0 truth_valued_p@1) (second_op:c @0
@1))
(bit_not (bit_ior @0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103513
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note we disable the creation of the cond_expr here normally until
!canonicalize_math_p () is true
But evrp does:
Folding statement: _10 = _9 * 20;
Matching expression match.pd:2075, gimple-match.c:819
Match
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103514
Bug ID: 103514
Summary: Missing XOR-EQ-AND Optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103513
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
--- Comment #1 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103497
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103510
--- Comment #1 from ashimida ---
For example, such a c code works find in clang with libunwind,
and will cause a crash in gcc with libgcc in aarch64.
#include
#include
#include
_Unwind_Reason_Code callback(struct _Unwind_Context *context, v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-01
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
rithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211130 (experimental) (GCC)
Can also quickly check here: https://godbolt.org/z/W18G8jn7E
Thanks,
Haoxin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the latest patch for PR 98954 fixes this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50271|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103512
Bug ID: 103512
Summary: The failure of the substitution in explicit-specifier
should be considered when overload resolution
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103453
--- Comment #8 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #7)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > > Fixed on trunk so far, but this is backportable.
> >
> > Turns out _GLIBCXX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103511
Bug ID: 103511
Summary: __builtin_bit_cast requires a constructor call
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103510
Bug ID: 103510
Summary: _Unwind_GetGR crashed for uninitialized registers
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 66839, which changed state.
Bug 66839 Summary: g++ accepts NSDMI with -std=c++98 when the intializer is a
macro defined in a standard header
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66839
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66839
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103017
ashimida changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103478
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|Possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103144
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Another issue is for SLP, when trip count is small and loop is completely
unrolled. SLP failed to generate vlshr_optab.
#include
void
foo (uint64_t* __restrict pdst, uint64_t* psrc, uint64_t shift)
{
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #7 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> -Wstrict-aliasing is kind of confusing in this regards since it's different
> from how other warnings with numerical levels work. Normally a higher
> numerical va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103453
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > Fixed on trunk so far, but this is backportable.
>
> Turns out _GLIBCXX_SANITIZE_VECTOR is not defined if libsanitizer i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103453
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Fixed on trunk so far, but this is backportable.
Turns out _GLIBCXX_SANITIZE_VECTOR is not defined if libsanitizer is not built
with GCC. But GCC does not support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103453
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Fixed on trunk so far, but this is backportable.
#include
int main()
{
std::vector vec;
vec.reserve(20);
vec[3]=40;
}
clang++ -o vec vec.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103453
--- Comment #4 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Fixed on trunk so far, but this is backportable.
Still Does not work on x86_64-w64-mingw32 on windows by default,
-D_GLIBCXX_SANITIZE_STD_ALLOCATOR -D_GLIBCXX_SANI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103484
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103463
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100524
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103509
Navid Rahimi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navidrahimi at microsoft dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103463
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5e2f2d0ad1b293c534338a72094926313e12039
commit r12-5647-gf5e2f2d0ad1b293c534338a72094926313e12039
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103484
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5e2f2d0ad1b293c534338a72094926313e12039
commit r12-5647-gf5e2f2d0ad1b293c534338a72094926313e12039
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103509
Bug ID: 103509
Summary: ((-1u >> t) & b) != 0 is not optimized to b != 0
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103217
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Excellent! Thanks for the feedback.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103491
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This testcase is incorrect. This call to nextafter has a finite result,
so it's correct that no exceptions are raised and so an exit status of 1
from the provided testcase is what should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #43 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 51910
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51910&action=edit
new patch after today's update
Can we just push this to main?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100524
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94579
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #9)
> > It does matter, if what you are want to see is if it is smaller than zero or
> > greater than zero. CCmode includes those things. There is a CCEQmode for
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99269
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94579
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:955ea7b58e4f1e3cc5083e88575161168c147254
commit r12-5642-g955ea7b58e4f1e3cc5083e88575161168c147254
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99269
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9603bccba62e250d0ff64863a1730a167d571a25
commit r12-5641-g9603bccba62e250d0ff64863a1730a167d571a25
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100524
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03ea0ca1189a39e095188b0425c66446cc84a0a5
commit r12-5640-g03ea0ca1189a39e095188b0425c66446cc84a0a5
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
--- Comment #5 from John McFarlane ---
Here is an example of the real-world code causing this warning:
https://github.com/johnmcfarlane/cnl/blob/6d46b6cf10a998e3bdcc32557f202c8579b5717c/test/unit/scaled_int/to_chars.h#L60
It is converting a num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103501
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Note for rotate it is as simple as:
> (for cmp (eq ne)
> (simplify
> (cmp (rotate @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
> (cmp @0 (rotate @2 @1
>
> Let me s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for rotate it is as simple as:
(for cmp (eq ne)
(simplify
(cmp (rotate @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
(cmp @0 (rotate @2 @1
Let me see if that is already there or not and test that one out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #5 from Stas Sergeev ---
Note that this code example
is trivial. If the warning have
disappeared as a false-negative,
then I am surprised you close this
as NOTABUG, as there is definitely
something to fix or improve here.
Not detecti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103217
--- Comment #10 from Dominique Martinet ---
Thank you for this work! I can confirm this indeed fixed the warning in my
application as well, time to add a fanalyzer build to my CI :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||64992
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103283
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There's more to it:
program p
type t
integer :: a(1) = 2
end type
type(t), parameter :: x(1) = t(3)
integer, parameter :: k(*) = x(1)%a
end
This fails with:
pr103283-z1.f90:6:28:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Because GCC can optimize that pun+dereference pattern without _not_ breaking
Did you mean to say "without breaking the code"?
I will assume it is the case:
> th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I think you misunderstood what precise means in this context really.
> > "Higher levels correspond to higher accur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103283
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think you misunderstood what precise means in this context really.
> "Higher levels correspond to higher accuracy (fewer false positives). "
So was it a false-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103408
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #3)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> > Started with r12-5386, obviously.
>
> I don't know if it is caused by the same bug.
>
> template
> concept C = auto([]{})
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 103263 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103263
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103261
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b8ecbc6d6652d061d7c72c64352d51eca2df6ca
commit r12-5639-g6b8ecbc6d6652d061d7c72c64352d51eca2df6ca
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103503
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103503
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
the only major target which does not have the interrupt attribute is aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/21/21-134r2.txt
> but it still requires using interoperable types etc.
> Just asking: did you simply forget to "decorate" your declarati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103503
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
RISCV does have the interrupt attribute too which should work here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103503
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
x86 (and I think MIPS) has an interrupt attribute, will that work instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101027
kiwixz at outlook dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kiwixz at outlook dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103504
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-30
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505
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=100546
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> Simpler and better patch which handles array sections as well as vector
> subscripts:
@Bill: does this patch or the submitted one in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103453
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far, but this is backportable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103496
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=103453
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cca6090b13ab503bef1cfa327e2d107789d6bd30
commit r12-5636-gcca6090b13ab503bef1cfa327e2d107789d6bd30
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101565
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99269
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103473
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36421e76a7150621f2a5c7060ddd3f80aa825a40
commit r12-5635-g36421e76a7150621f2a5c7060ddd3f80aa825a40
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101565
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:814f52a8bfc66aff8c453b040f0e730b034b7f52
commit r12-5634-g814f52a8bfc66aff8c453b040f0e730b034b7f52
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100524
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103484
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, seems Hongtao posted the same patch in the other PR. Will test it but
defer to him.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103484
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=103508
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103508
Bug ID: 103508
Summary: ICE in gfc_find_symtree, at fortran/symbol.c:2979
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103507
Bug ID: 103507
Summary: ICE in resolve_block_construct, at
fortran/resolve.c:10787
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103506
Bug ID: 103506
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_free_namespace, at
fortran/symbol.c:4039
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103505
Bug ID: 103505
Summary: ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103504
Bug ID: 103504
Summary: ICE in get_sym_storage_size, at
fortran/interface.c:2800
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 103483, which changed state.
Bug 103483 Summary: context-sensitive ranges change triggers stringop-overread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
