https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
--- Comment #4 from Kito Cheng ---
Thanks your info, that cause by the default ISA spec version bump issue,
binutils 2.38 and GCC 11.* using different default ISA spec cause this issue,
I've push a patch to GCC 11 branch [1] for this issue, coul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, muecker at gwdg dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Uecker ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9871d39f752bc9c114ed694662a519d04896f491
commit r11-9644-g9871d39f752bc9c114ed694662a519d04896f491
Author: Kito Cheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #12 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Btw, with -ftrapv it would mean we cannot re-order any signed arithmetic
> with respect to volatile accesses unless we can prove it does not invoke
> (undefin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #11 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #8)
> > The standard specifies in 5.1.2.3p6 that
> >
> > "— Volatile accesses to objects are evaluated strictly
> > ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, with -ftrapv it would mean we cannot re-order any signed arithmetic with
respect to volatile accesses unless we can prove it does not invoke (undefined,
but -ftrapv makes it implementation defined) si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #8)
> The standard specifies in 5.1.2.3p6 that
>
> "— Volatile accesses to objects are evaluated strictly
> according to the rules of the abstract machine."
>
> and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
--- Comment #3 from rvalue ---
(In reply to Kito Cheng from comment #2)
> Do you mind give few more version info for binutils and configuration info
> for gcc?
>
> You can obtain those info by following two commands:
> $ gcc -v
> $ as --version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104783
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
The patch I have works for target boards unix and unix/-foffload=-mptx=3.1, but
I run into the hang for --target_board=unix/-foffload=-misa=sm_75.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104832
--- Comment #6 from Toolybird ---
Created attachment 52588
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52588&action=edit
archive/zip.o differences
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104832
--- Comment #5 from Toolybird ---
Created attachment 52587
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52587&action=edit
image/gif.o differences
No worries. I'm attaching 2 diffs pertaining to "image/gif.o" and
"archive/zip.o".
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104778
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Created attachment 52586
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52586&action=edit
powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.1 -mcmpb -Og -g -c k1n69laf.c -Q
--help=target
It still ICEs for we w/ 2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104832
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Can you show the differences in one or two of the files, as you did before?
Thanks.
ASLR could be a factor, but only in the sense that it would make it more likely
to reveal a bug in the code. The code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104832
--- Comment #3 from Toolybird ---
Thanks for the quick patch! Things are a bit different now but unfortunately
the problem persists.
It appears there is an element of randomness to this problem as the list of
affected object files has changed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
--- Comment #1 from rvalue ---
It do works with `-march=rv64g_zifencei`, but I don't think it's the right way
to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
Bug ID: 104853
Summary: [RISC-V] -march=rv64g not including extension Zifencei
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989
--- Comment #22 from Jackson Huff ---
See bug 104852
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104852
--- Comment #1 from Jackson Huff ---
Note that my CMake command includes -lpthread even though CMake has been
configured to link it already with -pthread, so when reproducing it, remove
-lpthread to better replicate the situation (I only realize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104852
Bug ID: 104852
Summary: std::[j]thread::detach() still gives segmentation
faults with glibc 2.34
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104851
Bug ID: 104851
Summary: off-by-one out-of-bound access in
supports_vec_convert_optab_p, at optabs-query.cc:725
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 104842, which changed state.
Bug 104842 Summary: mips: signed overflow in LUI_OPERAND
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104842
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104842
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104842
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ab70a4a5c2d5a9ffb923f13b1c3b938c60dd0f0
commit r12-7555-g2ab70a4a5c2d5a9ffb923f13b1c3b938c60dd0f0
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: Wed Mar 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85665
--- Comment #13 from Chung-Ju Wu ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Roland Illig from comment #3)
> > > Therefore I thought I'd try a different approach this time.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
--- Comment #35 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #33)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #28)
> > (In reply to Roland Illig from comment #11)
> > > From aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:
> > > > passing %qT to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #27 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #26)
> Does it work on macOS now?
Yes, thanks! All that remains now is the original `echo -n` problem...
Actually, let me test to see if the autolinking works with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Does it work on macOS now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17bffa0c9f90df49bde6671816bde04008b6c5af
commit r12-7554-g17bffa0c9f90df49bde6671816bde04008b6c5af
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96440
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e52af9cac7fa7409c78c9f336dc1da57750c9766
commit r12-7552-ge52af9cac7fa7409c78c9f336dc1da57750c9766
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104850
Bug ID: 104850
Summary: Instantiating a destructor for a template class too
early, before the calling destructor is seen - rejects
valid code
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104126
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104126
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48777d982add74cef14ec6704a622fce4d4a2609
commit r12-7551-g48777d982add74cef14ec6704a622fce4d4a2609
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96437
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3093f8a18e7a9c5a9bba976d58a2f91033e7f35a
commit r12-7550-g3093f8a18e7a9c5a9bba976d58a2f91033e7f35a
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96329
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ab72ec7c456c92989276f17fe0ae90a56932149
commit r12-7549-g8ab72ec7c456c92989276f17fe0ae90a56932149
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #21 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> As for constant folding, even with double double gcc is able to fold some
> constant arithmetics in that format, but because the emulation is only
> approxima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104847
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104108
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10/11 Regression] [c++17+]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104108
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d54ce4641ed10208be36fd514cae8ff1153c
commit r12-7548-gd54ce4641ed10208be36fd514cae8ff1153c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104832
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I just committed 2858e2afcb0a6553a222e724d8426451364ee755 which should fix the
specific problem in fmt.gox.
Let me know if you still see problems here. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104846
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104829
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #20 from David Edelsohn ---
Double-double has advantages and disadvantages. You're welcome to debate
William Kahan about the choice instead of making snarky comments here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237
--- Comment #17 from Chengnian Sun ---
Thanks for the prompt help. I managed to locate the exact commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #19 from beebe at math dot utah.edu ---
Thanks for the further comments on PowerPC, double double as fake long
double, and the news of gcc-12 on Fedora 36 for that CPU. I'll soon
build a VM to get access to that combination. I have V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-gf4ee27d32 means something didn't work correctly, normally it should be
something like r12-6853-gf4ee27d32 which you can use directly in git.
Anyway, the git has is after the -g, so f4ee27d32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
The g part of the uuid stands for global revision and the g needs to be removed
to get a normal gut hash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104811
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3e369dad6cbecb1b490b3f3b154c600fba5a6f3
commit r12-7545-ge3e369dad6cbecb1b490b3f3b154c600fba5a6f3
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104806
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, for the time being only little endian powerpc64 can switch (I think only
power9 and later have hw support for IEEE quad and in the ABI it is passed in
Altivec/VSX registers. ppc64le only supports powe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104806
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e480c3c06d20874fd7504bfdcca0b829f8000389
commit r12-7544-ge480c3c06d20874fd7504bfdcca0b829f8000389
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #17 from beebe at math dot utah.edu ---
>> ... powerpc currently uses what is called double double for 128bit
>> long double. GCC does not know how to constant fold that nicely.
Yes, I know about the double double format that IBM, SGI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237
--- Comment #14 from Chengnian Sun ---
How to interpret the version string of "gcc -v"? For example, in the following
output, I tried to locate the commit with id gf4ee27d32, but did not get
anything.
"gcc version 12.0.1 20220125 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #8 from Martin Uecker ---
The standard specifies in 5.1.2.3p6 that
"— Volatile accesses to objects are evaluated strictly
according to the rules of the abstract machine."
and
"This is the observable behavior of the program."
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102209
--- Comment #2 from Federico Kircheis ---
Isn't the compiler allowed to do copy/move elision even if observable since
before c++17?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> (In reply to beebe from comment #14)
> > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
> >
> > That is a really old one, from early 2006; I would have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104845
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Part of the testcase is part of the patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/591414.html
When this PR is fixed (and that patch is committed): Please uncomment the
commented lines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104844
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Part of the testcase is part of the patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/591414.html
When this PR is fixed (and that patch is committed): Please uncomment the
commented lines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104849
Bug ID: 104849
Summary: ICE in find_array_section, at fortran/expr.cc:1616
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104848
Bug ID: 104848
Summary: ICE in simplify_intrinsic_op, at fortran/expr.cc:1305
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104847
Bug ID: 104847
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in write_unqualified_name, at
cp/mangle.cc:1406
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104846
Bug ID: 104846
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected
function_decl, have field_decl in grokmethod, at
cp/decl.cc:17999
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104845
Bug ID: 104845
Summary: Wrong array size for component of CLASS array element
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104678
--- Comment #1 from S Béla ---
Ping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
--- Comment #34 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34b45cc5266db9e4098df43bec898625a6004b77
commit r12-7542-g34b45cc5266db9e4098df43bec898625a6004b77
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104844
Bug ID: 104844
Summary: CLASS actual to assumed-rank TYPE(*) wrongly passes
declared instead of dynamic type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7175f36812b32d3de242f15c065b9cb68e957a9
commit r12-7541-gb7175f36812b32d3de242f15c065b9cb68e957a9
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] gcc |[9/10/11 Regression] gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104777
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1133c0205a7e2a65834a1af780b8da15eead2a9
commit r12-7540-ge1133c0205a7e2a65834a1af780b8da15eead2a9
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104811
--- Comment #5 from Amir Shahmoradi ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #4)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> > (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > > Compiles and executes without optimization or if -fno-frontend-optimize is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104811
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to beebe from comment #14)
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
>
> That is a really old one, from early 2006; I would have hoped that it
> had long since been repaired in gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
--- Comment #14 from beebe at math dot utah.edu ---
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26374
That is a really old one, from early 2006; I would have hoped that it
had long since been repaired in gcc.
However, I just checked my VM fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104843
Bug ID: 104843
Summary: signed overflow in compute_const_anchors, at
cse.cc:1180
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/591396.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104781
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:23ed4df521db9d66782d3f9cf291fc2564cf313a
commit r12-7539-g23ed4df521db9d66782d3f9cf291fc2564cf313a
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Mar 4 05:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104613
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
We can add a sorry since -mfunction-return=thunk isn't supported with
__builtin_eh_return.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104790
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andre Simoes Dias Vieira
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:796f5220c808bc37adbd1081476589ab1a5d7ac3
commit r12-7538-g796f5220c808bc37adbd1081476589ab1a5d7ac3
Author: Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
--- Comment #33 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #28)
> (In reply to Roland Illig from comment #10)
> > From aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:
> > > error_at (location, "passing single vector %qT to argument %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
\? is not allowed in a POSIX BRE, and unsupported by Solaris and BSD.
The capture group with \( and \) is not supported by /usr/bin/sed on Solaris,
but is supported by /usr/xpg4/bin but I guess we can ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88061
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I stumbled over this as well as some point. One thing I started playing with,
but had to set aside was making vect_get_range_info smarter.
In particular the case I was looking at VAR would have a single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We should use: sed -n 's,^tags/,,;s,^basepoints/gcc-,r,p'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104552
--- Comment #32 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Gallager :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6319391d5634ceb07abfadfaabee25e403f5110a
commit r12-7537-g6319391d5634ceb07abfadfaabee25e403f5110a
Author: Eric Gallager
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The first sed is failing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #19 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > I still get "expr: syntax error" when trying to do `git gcc-descr 716bb02b`
> > after re-running `sh ./contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh`
>
> Ok, so can you p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54865
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104842
Bug ID: 104842
Summary: mips: signed overflow in LUI_OPERAND
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Eric, please try again now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10ecf5182a0f63d79a44b953483ecfbb54d29bcb
commit r12-7536-g10ecf5182a0f63d79a44b953483ecfbb54d29bcb
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Using "${r}" instead of ${r:-no} would be simpler too, but that can be done
separately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/
> Limitations-of-Usual-Tools.html#index-g_t_0040command_007bexpr_007d-1813
>
> The ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> Ah, but 'expr match str re' is not in POSIX, it should be 'expr str : re'
Great, I can confirm it works for me. Can you please install the change?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104841
Bug ID: 104841
Summary: [nvptx] Multi-version ptx
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, but 'expr match str re' is not in POSIX, it should be 'expr str : re'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah no, my mistake, any POSIX shell should expand that correctly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102664
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
git-descr.sh uses ${r:-no} which is a bash feature, but the shebang says
/bin/sh
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo