https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should this PR be closed, or are there backports pending?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104544
Bug ID: 104544
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure
(length) w/ -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compare-debug-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104543
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
>From Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/s1WW4snzM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104543
Bug ID: 104543
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 96864, which changed state.
Bug 96864 Summary: loop not vectorized due AVX512 condition handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96864
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96864
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96864
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12 by r12-6756-g8bc700f4c3fbe405413db02281ef2918bfa831fc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102464
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104059
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104542
Bug ID: 104542
Summary: make_obj_using_allocator and
uninitialized_construct_using_allocator lack constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
ompression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220214 (experimental) (GCC)
/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-7228-20220214143106-g0a1a3afb5fb-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.1 20220214 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104107
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c3309e3d0f5cb8f298f7604848d115f0992e04f
commit r12-7236-g2c3309e3d0f5cb8f298f7604848d115f0992e04f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95036
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c3309e3d0f5cb8f298f7604848d115f0992e04f
commit r12-7236-g2c3309e3d0f5cb8f298f7604848d115f0992e04f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
--- Comment #10 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #8)
> I am about to thest the following patch. In longer-run, it would be better
> to never generate lattice values outside of the value_range but there is an
> ordering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539
--- Comment #1 from Cassio Neri ---
Sorry, the last snippet above should be
template
inline
int f() {
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539
Bug ID: 104539
Summary: Failed to inline a very simple template function when
it's explicit instantiated.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Randy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Randy at miningrigrentals dot
com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104538
--- Comment #1 from YunQiang Su ---
This problem happens only for the new gdc code introduced in gcc-12.
Assignee: ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
Reporter: syq at debian dot org
Target Milestone: ---
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-12&arch=mips64el&ver=12-20220214-1&stamp=1644848228&raw=0
The segment is from:
gcc/d/dmd/ctfeexpr.d:
UnionExp changeArrayLiteral
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104377
--- Comment #4 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #2)
> (In reply to Feng Xue from comment #1)
> >
> > OK. I does missed something. Here we could not hold assumption that
> > ipcp_decision_stage() only sees raw cgraph nod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99215
--- Comment #14 from Jarrod Smith ---
I've been following this and experiencing the issue in gcc 10.2. I still see
"" for all variables when debugging C++20 coroutines with gcc
11.2.
Is there a workaround (e.g. using a certain branch of gcc) in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104537
Bug ID: 104537
Summary: ICE when generic-lambda as function parameter fails to
be converted to pointer to function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Setting aside the question of warning about inequality expressions involving
invalid pointers, it seems that if the annotation 'candidates ={v}
{CLOBBER(eol)};' is to be interpreted as one would intuitively e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99197
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104536
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |other
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104536
--- Comment #1 from James McKelvey ---
Created attachment 52441
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52441&action=edit
Config log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104536
Bug ID: 104536
Summary: gcc-12-20220213 Fails to build on Cygwin: contraction
‘can%'t’ in format
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
--- Comment #9 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
having a patch in my local tree, under testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a1b179b08bc802280ca90ed4c6c8d8b25503e66
commit r12-7234-g7a1b179b08bc802280ca90ed4c6c8d8b25503e66
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104253
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16b65b08484237cc2845c4f5c4f15efe3a43a32c
commit r12-7233-g16b65b08484237cc2845c4f5c4f15efe3a43a32c
Author: Michael Meissner
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> and evrp properly figured out those ranges, that 1 / int is [-1, 1] and
> that 2 >> [-1, 1] is [1, 2].
> But since r12-6924 the IL is:
> c.0_1 = c;
> _2 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104535
Bug ID: 104535
Summary: don't use fmod?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95596
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johnsen.david at siemens dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104211
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19b517dff37b8e25f6babf8883483be73cad8fb3
commit r12-7232-g19b517dff37b8e25f6babf8883483be73cad8fb3
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104534
Bug ID: 104534
Summary: write-strings does not follow C++ standard
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104531
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104533
Bug ID: 104533
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in update_vtable_references, at
ipa-visibility.cc:383
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104531
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in prepare_cmp_insn, at |[12 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104532
Bug ID: 104532
Summary: ICE in lvalue_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:4987
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104531
Bug ID: 104531
Summary: ICE in prepare_cmp_insn, at optabs.cc:4547
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104529
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104529
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[missed optimization] |[12 Regression] inefficient
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104529
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
I don't quite see how this is a CSE problem,
There's only one of each constant and none of them are needed before the call.
unlike in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86892
You don't need the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103083
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have changed the patch a bit and re-submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590341.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So the updated patch fixes the arc build regressions. I haven't looked at the
thread with Segher, but I will as soon as I can. Mostly just wanted to let
you know that the updated patch does indeed get th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104510
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=86892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104529
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
Aleksei Latyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alex_700_95 at mail dot ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100912
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100912
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d50dede07de0923f0f320d385162e546445e640
commit r12-7231-g3d50dede07de0923f0f320d385162e546445e640
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100806
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
--- Comment #8 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> If we just want to avoid the warning in cases like that (there is nothing
> wrong in the testcases themselves, the warning just warns about an
> impl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104507
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104530
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104530
Bug ID: 104530
Summary: [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at
-O3 (trunk vs. 11.2.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104527
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104527
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104423
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 52438
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52438&action=edit
Tentative patch (GOMP_TARGET_ENV_ITER)
A more generic solution using env var GOMP_TARGET_ENV_ITER, which allows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104513
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:02a981a8e512934a990d1427d14e8e884409fade
commit r12-7230-g02a981a8e512934a990d1427d14e8e884409fade
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100337
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104529
Bug ID: 104529
Summary: [missed optimization] inefficient codegen around
new/delete
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100337
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae57aae60d1be821feccb3160f8fdd5987ecba79
commit r11-9568-gae57aae60d1be821feccb3160f8fdd5987ecba79
Author: Andre Vehre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52437
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52437&action=edit
gcc12-pr104522.patch
Patch I'll test tonight.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94294
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, to me it seems that since we are resolving condition 1) statically we know
that the difference of iv->base and final is positive with infinite
precision and fits the unsigned niter_type. To avoid goin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103970
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103790
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:680ee9c333280df74e06e1bc9f3be218424f94b3
commit r11-9567-g680ee9c333280df74e06e1bc9f3be218424f94b3
Author: Andre Vehre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
index 386d5732ea0..9d9939642f6 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
@@ -14208,11 +14208,7 @@ multiple_of_p (tree type, const_tree top, co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So my question is whether something should normalize those numbers and why
decode_ieee_extended happily initializes an invalid number (its documentation
of course might suggest it only expects valid encoded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I am about to thest the following patch. In longer-run, it would be better to
never generate lattice values outside of the value_range but there is an
ordering problem, we need the complete VR info before w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104528
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a1a3afb5fb36e2d10ad92bf788e16d837451571
commit r12-7228-g0a1a3afb5fb36e2d10ad92bf788e16d837451571
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The MODE_COMPOSITE_P handling can be surely enabled for other modes too, I have
guarded it just because it slows compile time down a little bit and for usual
IEEE754 modes it should be always true, shouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103891
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:164a761a9f4798dc69ecab80097807636dc17d61
commit r12-7227-g164a761a9f4798dc69ecab80097807636dc17d61
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104517
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-14
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104528
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
At the start of IVOPTs we have
(gdb) p debug_tree (cfun->x_current_loops->larray->m_vecdata[4]->nb_iterations)
unit-size
align:32 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104528
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104514
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, but this one asks for a new feature, not just "please make this kluge work
again".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104527
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > But I do wonder whether real_from_target needs fixing to handle invalid
> > input gracefully which is ultimativel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104528
Bug ID: 104528
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in gimple_bb)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104507
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104506
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> But I do wonder whether real_from_target needs fixing to handle invalid
> input gracefully which is ultimatively decode_ieee_extended?
long double foo (void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
