https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105109
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
There isn't really a good way (w/o further analysis) to improve what
update_address_taken does. While it probably could use a BIT_INSERT_EXPR
instead of reading the other component and using a COMPLEX_EXPR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
You'll see it with:
gcc-11 pr105107.c -fsanitize=address -g -O2 &&
ASAN_OPTIONS=detect_stack_use_after_return=1 ./a.out
addr of e=0x739f4020
write to 0x739f4020
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
Haochen Jiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091
--- Comment #14 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
...
> Does the following fix the runtime error? The RTL after DSE seems to be OK.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-expr.cc b/gcc/gimple-expr.cc
> index f9a650b5daf..5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105117
Bug ID: 105117
Summary: automatic deallocation of objects in procedures with
heap arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90226
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it w/ the current g++ 12.0.1 20220327 snapshot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105116
Bug ID: 105116
Summary: ICE in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.cc:1870
(error: unable to find a register to spill)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ce8154f1c72e6d701bff969a007938e2f986369
commit r12-7929-g0ce8154f1c72e6d701bff969a007938e2f986369
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
--- Comment #10 from Kito Cheng ---
I plan to fix that in next few day for trunk and backport to GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105115
Bug ID: 105115
Summary: `demangle_const` causes infinite recursion and stack
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105074
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bero at lindev dot ch
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105113
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853
--- Comment #9 from rvalue ---
Hi Kito:
Thank you for your follow-up patch! Confirmed that these patches do work. The
test program compiles successfully with no `-misa-spec` flag or
`-misa-spec=2.2` flag.
But when I set `-misa-spec=20190608` o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101869
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105114
Bug ID: 105114
Summary: [12 regression] contrib/gcc_update hangs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100892
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100892
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4e4b35f4ebe561826489bed971324efc99c5423
commit r12-7927-gb4e4b35f4ebe561826489bed971324efc99c5423
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105113
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Rosenkraenzer ---
Created attachment 52720
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52720&action=edit
Reduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105113
Bug ID: 105113
Summary: [12 Regression] Analyzer segfaults on __func__ in
static function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, "perf report" shows that these are the top items in the profile:
8.72% libc-2.31.so [.] _int_malloc
6.68% libc-2.31.so [.] _int_free
2.91% cc1 [.] ana::binding_map::binding_map
2.76% l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100892
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=61027
--- Comment #7 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I think we should close this: no such problem with GCC 11.2.0 on Darwin 21.4.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111
--- Comment #3 from Andrei-Edward Popa ---
Thanks for that reference to the standard, it is clear to me why gcc reject
this call as ambiguous.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89583
--- Comment #4 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I just ran "make check-gnat" with
/Volumes/Miscellaneous1/x86_64/gcc/gcc/gnatmake version 12.0.1 20220311
(experimental) (x86_64-apple-darwin21), with only two fails:
FAIL: gnat.dg/bias1.adb sc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Example state (picked at random from -fdump-analyzer-exploded-nodes-2 output):
EN 113734:
preds: EN: 113733
succs: EN: 113735
callstring: []
before (SN: 12511 stmt: 0):
if (j_8254 <= 8191)
31 | for (j =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112
Bug ID: 105112
Summary: Speed up -fanalyzer on big-code.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #30 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
> Also, what does LLVM do?
clang-14 agree with gcc-12 on the return values, as we expected (the ABI
documentation is clear enough).
But clang-14 treats arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
FWIW one workaround could be to consistently use 'T' or 'const T&' as the first
function parameter for both functions.
Another workaround could be to constrain the second overload with
'(!std::is_signed::va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrei.popa105 at yahoo dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111
Bug ID: 105111
Summary: Ambiguous constructor overload with requires
constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63675
--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Not sure when this was fixed, but OK in 11.2.0:
$ /opt/gcc-11.2.0/bin/gnatmake -c -u -f union.ads
gcc -c union.ads
union.ads:15:06: warning: discriminated record has no direct equivalent in C
uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
--- Comment #4 from vit9696 ---
Path length limitation in the current case is 200 bytes, but in general the
issue is that we would like _to be able to properly set the gcda path for the
target_. Currently the specified path may not even exist wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
GCC-11 branch needs a bit different patch. I'll commit a modified patch to
gcc-11 branch on Friday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:22b0476a814a4759bb68f38b9415624a0fe52a7d
commit r12-7924-g22b0476a814a4759bb68f38b9415624a0fe52a7d
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced the bug also on the trunk. The loop in question assumes a
specific order for reload insns. In this case order of insns involving the
reload pseudos is violated because the pseudo is als
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80869
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80869
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org ---
This was fixed 4 years ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
>
> > So, do we need to switch to soft-fp based implementation for it (we have a
> > copy already in libgcc/soft-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
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=105105
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||67531, 69101, 78314, 82968,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110
Bug ID: 105110
Summary: NTTP type deduction fails when dependent of previous
NTTPs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105109
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105109
Bug ID: 105109
Summary: [12 Regression] False positive warning on complex
float code since r12-155
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52719
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52719&action=edit
gcc12-pr102772.patch
So like this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104414
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Assuming that posix_memalign is slower than malloc (which seems likely), it
would be better to fix this in the compiler by defining
__STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__=8 for i386 solaris, instead of setting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(IMHO we should never have added float128 to max_align_t for targets where we
can't change malloc, but that was decided long ago).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, this is a well known problem that stddef.h's max_align_t does not agree
with malloc on i386 Solaris. Glibc used to have the same problem.
Fixing it in the compiler or in operator new seems reasonabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks for your prompt reply. The warning messages only appeared for -O0 and
-O3, not for -O1 and -O2. I wonder this might also be an issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108
Bug ID: 105108
Summary: incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og
after inlining a function returning a constant
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #29 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Is there somebody who can clarify the MIPS ABI intent?
> Also, what does LLVM do?
I've CC'ed Yunqiang and Fangrui. And I'll build clang for MIPS to see...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE|[9/10 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:511e8b612287ad828c60f2f12c500ccfa26c275c
commit r11-9751-g511e8b612287ad828c60f2f12c500ccfa26c275c
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5db9ce171019f8915885cebd5cc5f4101bb926e6
commit r12-7922-g5db9ce171019f8915885cebd5cc5f4101bb926e6
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100474
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091
--- Comment #12 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
In dse.cc, "may_be_aliased" affects "can_escape" and then affects
"kill_on_calls".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100474
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3aaf9bf77047aecc23072fe3db7f13ecff72a7cf
commit r12-7921-g3aaf9bf77047aecc23072fe3db7f13ecff72a7cf
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151
commit r12-7920-g6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #30 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151
commit r12-7920-g6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104583
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 regression] ICE |[10/11 regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091
--- Comment #11 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Find one difference between trunk and r12-656:
On trunk:
tree expr = MEM_EXPR (mem);
where mem is
(mem/f/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 110 sfp)
(const_int 32 [0x20])) [3 GOTMP.2[0].x.__values+0 S8 A12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #27)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23)
>
> > struct A { double a; int : 0; double b; };
>
> For MIPS I've done some experiment with this and the result (wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107
Bug ID: 105107
Summary: false positive stack-buffer-overflow in ASAN
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104583
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb
commit r12-7919-gf8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93280
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb
commit r12-7919-gf8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105068
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00d12a4a0fd56d8e9be1672e5e7637416b27fbb1
commit r11-9750-g00d12a4a0fd56d8e9be1672e5e7637416b27fbb1
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091
--- Comment #10 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Created attachment 52718
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52718&action=edit
m.go sub1.go
Based on Ian's code, the below code also reproduce this issue.
package sub1
func TestBits(callback
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #27 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23)
> struct A { double a; int : 0; double b; };
For MIPS I've done some experiment with this and the result (with N64 ABI) is:
With GCC trunk, G++ trunk, and GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104796
Bug 104796 depends on bug 102024, which changed state.
Bug 102024 Summary: [12 Regression] zero width bitfields and ABIs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105106
--- Comment #1 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
There is implementation divergence in the resulting closure type(s):
https://godbolt.org/z/W98r49o8s.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sorry, apparently I must have misread the mmix below mips as being mips too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #24 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23)
> CCing MIPS maintainers on this (and also LoongArch, while there is no ABI
> incompatibility for a new port, it is perhaps something to discuss and
> decid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105099
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.2.1, 12.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dlong at cadence dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f
commit r9-1-g1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f
Author: Martin Jambor
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f
commit r9-1-g1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f
Author: Martin Jambor
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105106
Bug ID: 105106
Summary: Dependent invocation with defaulted NTTP lambda fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78415
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105105
Bug ID: 105105
Summary: Fortran IEEE support
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #42 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52717
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52717&action=edit
hack to rewrite all ARRA_REFs
This shows a simple hack emitting *(&array + offset) from gfc_build_array_ref.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
>
> But it will remain to be something like:
>
> .string "/home/user/t.gcda
Well, -fprofile-prefix-map is about the mapping of the source file.
So what exactly is your problem? Are the long filename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, to sum up:
aarch64, arm, x86-64 and riscv (last one since GCC 10 already) do ignore zero
width bit-fields in argument/return value passing decisions and so have a
C ABI incompatibility from earlier GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104796
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/592522.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have asked for permission to backport the fix in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/592520.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105099
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Based on the issue submission date, Clark was probably talking about GCC 3.1 or
similar. So maybe this is a regression since the new C++ parser was introduced.
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
