https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104763
--- Comment #3 from 。 <570070308 at qq dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Can't reproduce with -O2, with -O1 there are 2 stores instead of 3
> before the endless loop starting with
> r9-384-gf1bcb061d172ca7e3bdcc46476b2077
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104767
Bug ID: 104767
Summary: GNAT.Serial_Communications windows package
allows/causes multiple closing of the same windows
handle.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||54367
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104721
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104764
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104622
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> Created attachment 52553 [details]
> A patch to always return pseudo register in ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx
For pr100865-8a.c,pr100865-9c.c,pr100865-8c.c
+/* { dg-fina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104762
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> --- pieces-memset-46.s2022-03-02 06:44:55.845212762 -0800
> +++
> /export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/pieces-
> memset-46.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104766
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note I found this in the twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/BarryRevzin/status/1499133387797409792
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104766
Bug ID: 104766
Summary: (a * even_cst) & CST does not remove the lower bit
from the CST
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] False |[12 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think I've argued in another bug that it might be reasonable to not warn
about uses within the same header (since that is likely to be part of the same
library, and the warnings are probably intended for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Libstdc++ has the attribute on both of these templates. I used diagnostic
pragmas to stop the function templates from warning about the use of the class
templates.
If other code refers to either of them,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 52553
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52553&action=edit
A patch to always return pseudo register in ix86_gen_scratch_sse_rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104738
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
char having the same set of values as signed char is valid.
char is not however a "signed integer type" within the meaning of the
standard, and so is never a valid definition of int8_t, de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104765
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104765
Bug ID: 104765
Summary: Expression statement with a return in a
lambda-parameter-default causes segfault when called
in a different function
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104622
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104618
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
-linux-gnu
Configured with: /tmp/tmp.V0AGQ6q77G-gcc-builder/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-checking-yes --enable-multiarch
--prefix=/home/xuzhy/usr/bin --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.1 20220302 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Comparing the IR, the discrepancy looks like it relates to signedness of the
"char" type.
Works with --target=powerpc64le-linux-gnu if I add -fsigned-char to the command
line; otherwise it fails as noted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-02
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52551|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104763
--- Comment #1 from 。 <570070308 at qq dot com> ---
change `*i=0x0700070007000700;` to `*(volatile size_t *)i=0x0700070007000700;`
will fix it.
This is my mistake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It isn't sufficient though, consider:
#pragma omp declare target
void
foo (int x, int y, int *z)
{
int j = 0;
#pragma omp simd linear(j:x + y)
for (int i = 0; i < 64; i++)
j += x + y;
}
#pragma omp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12463f1ecbcb30b39b8212454a6e598645123305
commit r12-7456-g12463f1ecbcb30b39b8212454a6e598645123305
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #7)
> Florian, can you confirm that -mlong-double-64 comes after the
> -mabi=ibmlongdouble option in the problematical glibc build?
The mailing list post referenced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104763
Bug ID: 104763
Summary: [12.0] Generate wrong assembly code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I think the glibc problem is in a compiler defaulting to -mabi=ieeelongdouble
> they want to use -mabi=ibmlongdouble -mlong-double-64 (because
> -mabi=ibmlongdou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104744
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
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=104741
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104729
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104735
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104737
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104737
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Fixed test was downstreamed in r12-7454.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104762
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|x86_64 538.imagick_r 8%-28% |x86_64 538.imagick_r 8%-28%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101018
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101018
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbaabd06aaf4a1b0f2a20671c39148a0bd6ccf0e
commit r12-7452-gdbaabd06aaf4a1b0f2a20671c39148a0bd6ccf0e
Author: Qing Zhao
Date: Wed Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104762
Bug ID: 104762
Summary: x86_64 538.imagick_r 8%-28% regressions after
r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d718
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think EDGE_DFS_BACK is only computed (or guaranteed to be correct?) if
mark_dfs_back_edges () is called, I think the waccess pass doesn't call that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> > 923 r = gimple_range_global (name);
> >
> > (gdb) p debug_tree(name)
> > > type > ...
> you do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
--- Comment #3 from Louis Dionne ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> And I think this is the same problem as in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911#c18. Not sure if we want
> to change anything.
Yup, I agree this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104752
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-02
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911
Louis Dionne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is in:
if (!bitmap_set_bit (visited, bb->index))
/* Avoid cycles. */
return true;
pass_waccess::use_after_inval_p
When walking the bbs from use_bb:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> > Confirmed ever since commit 48c6cac9caea1dc7c5f50ad3a736f6693e74a11b
... which added the testcase (by porting i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Bug ID: 104761
Summary: [12 Regression] False positive -Wdangling-pointer
warning on NetworkManager since r12-6606
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-tgl-2 pr103393]$ cat x.c
struct TestData {
float arr[8];
};
void cpy(struct TestData *s1, struct TestData *s2 ) {
for(int i=0; i<16; ++i) {
s1->arr[i] = s2->arr[i];
}
}
[hjl@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104704
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
--- pieces-memset-46.s 2022-03-02 06:44:55.845212762 -0800
+++
/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/pieces-memset-46.s
2022-03-02 06:45:03.313188978 -0800
@@ -8,9 +8,11 @@ foo:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
And I think this is the same problem as in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911#c18. Not sure if we want to
change anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104760
Bug ID: 104760
Summary: Attribute [[deprecated]] causes diagnostic in
never-instantiated template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104758
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
FWIW, I ordered an sm_30 board, to be able to test this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104686
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fede2876a751d53a28442dcca32466daa929daa
commit r12-7451-g8fede2876a751d53a28442dcca32466daa929daa
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #5)
> The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7b4c8feee11ea04b83f9996654c96b130588570
>
> commit r12-7449-gd7b4c8feee11ea04
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmmm looks like it doesn't support vector comparisons
missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: _6 = _5 <= 255;
I'll probably just have to skip them on sparc*-* then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104730
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104730
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8eb36ce5576817c54ad1f8061d2232774fc0d093
commit r11-9635-g8eb36ce5576817c54ad1f8061d2232774fc0d093
Author: Tamar Christi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100408
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104730
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ced22c51baaa3fe84d14d5baef60c4440a35b4be
commit r12-7450-gced22c51baaa3fe84d14d5baef60c4440a35b4be
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52549
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52549&action=edit
vect-bic-bitmask-10.c -fdump-tree-vect-all output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104758
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina ---
Hmmm the tests are gated by vect_int which sparc declares to support but the
code didn't vectorize, so probably an unsupported operation somewhere..
Could you attach the output of -fdump-tree-vect-all?
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104345
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104759
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104759
Bug ID: 104759
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-12.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104758
Bug ID: 104758
Summary: [nvptx] sm_30 support
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> > Confirmed ever since commit 48c6cac9caea1dc7c5f50ad3a736f6693e74a11b
> which was committed on 'Nov 12 17:58:21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> Confirmed ever since commit 48c6cac9caea1dc7c5f50ad3a736f6693e74a11b
which was committed on 'Nov 12 17:58:21 2021'. — However, that's a FE-only
patch which onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
The reason for the nvptx dependency is the following.
omp_max_simt_vf (void)
{
if (!optimize)
return 0;
if (ENABLE_OFFLOADING)
for (const char *c = getenv ("OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES"); c;)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104757
Bug ID: 104757
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE (segfault) GIMPLE pass: walloca -
in gimple_range_global
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52547&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 vect-fmax-1.c.172t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104756
Bug ID: 104756
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-fmax-1.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 52546
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52546&action=edit
32-bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 vect-bic-bitmask-10.c.210t.dce7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104755
Bug ID: 104755
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bic-bitmask-10.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104754
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104754
Bug ID: 104754
Summary: gcc.dg/pr102892-1.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #25 from Sean ---
Ah, that makes sense, thank you Richard. I didn't pay as close attention to
the actual swap() code and casting going on there.
Apparently unrelated, but perhaps worth noting the reason this come up on my
radar is b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104753
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 52545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52545&action=edit
gkd diff
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
