https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110293
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55527
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55527&action=edit
the eq/ne based functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110009
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-12
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||deco33000 at yandex dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110636
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||justin at jtcholzer dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110636
Bug ID: 110636
Summary: boost::geometry compile error with std::set.
Product: gcc
Version: og12 (devel/omp/gcc-12)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110635
Bug ID: 110635
Summary: Segmentation fault when the awaiter's await_resume in
initial-suspend returns a class type.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #13 from YunQiang Su ---
This tiny patch works will this small test case by replace with dins to ins.
I have no idea whether it will have any side effects.
Any idea?
diff --git a/gcc/expmed.cc b/gcc/expmed.cc
index fbd4ce2d42f..37
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #4 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #2 from Hao Liu ---
To my understanding, "reduction latency" is the least number of cycles needed
to do the reduction calculation for 1 iteration of loop. It is calcualted by
the extra instruction issue-info of the new cost models i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110629
--- Comment #3 from Rich Townsend ---
Thanks for the quick responses, folks. The problem persists in 12.3.0 release,
but is fixed in 13.1.0 release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110293
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||110293
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 55526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55526&action=edit
Minimal reproducer, also as attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is a mininal reproducer:
module process_mci
implicit none
private
public :: process_mci_entry_t
type :: process_mci_entry_t
integer :: i_mci = 0
integer, dimension(:), allocatable ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110288
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b2c523ae31b68fc3b8363b458a55eec53a44365
commit r14-2439-g3b2c523ae31b68fc3b8363b458a55eec53a44365
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110634
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
You need to look at a non-leaf function. For a leaf function there is nothing
to unwind from.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110634
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Björn Töpel from comment #2)
> Hmm, but is a frame-pointer w/o the ability to unwind useful? Or am I
> missing something?
You know what, you are better ask the ABI folks because GCC follows the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110634
--- Comment #2 from Björn Töpel ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I don't see where in any of the spec mentioned that storing of ra is needed
> at all. That is it does not read ambigous to me at all. It just mentions for
> a fram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110634
Bug ID: 110634
Summary: Incorrect RISC-V assembly with -fno-omit-frame-pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110288
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note basically -fsanitize=undefined in this case stops SRA from happening ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This has nothing to do with cleanup functions but just nested functions vs SRA.
Take:
```
int foo1 (void);
int foo2 (int);
#ifdef D
#define N
#else
#define N !
#endif
int bar (void)
{
int i;
auto void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
--- Comment #10 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I confirm the change fixed nix-2.16.1 and json-3.11.2 builds for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110288
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch in comment#3 tries to fix a symptom and is wrong. The true cause
is the attempt to derive the formal argument typespec from the actual for
intrinsics. This mistreats character, as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110126
Thorsten Otto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110633
Bug ID: 110633
Summary: Using an unknown identifier as argument to ORD results
in ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110629
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.0
--- Comment #2 from a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110629
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=110576
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.3.0
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 55525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55525&action=edit
Simpler reproducer in a single file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110632
Bug ID: 110632
Summary: RISC-V: SLP optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110610
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110631
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110631
Bug ID: 110631
Summary: Bug in FIO.WriteCardinal
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: modula2
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106884
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> But yes, since we now unconditionally compute 1< GCC could assume b is in range. We are lacking a way to compute 1< optimally without that undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110628
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-fdump-tree-all-blocks-details produced more than 100 dump files. Which one(s)
do you want?
seurer@ltcden2-lp1:~/gcc/git/build/gcc-test$
/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110630
Bug ID: 110630
Summary: Missed optimization: bb-slp-pr95839.c not vectorised
with V2SF targets
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
--- Comment #8 from Ted Lyngmo ---
:-) Ok I tried understanding the Status by reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status but it doesn't
mention NEW. But ok, as long as it's actually a confirmed bug, I'm good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
But it would be nice to see why the functions are not early inlined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110334
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka ---
I will cook up the patch to keep multiple variants of nodes pre-inline
and we will see how much that affects compile time & how hard it will be
to get unit size esitmates right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ted Lyngmo from comment #6)
> @Andrew Pinski: Shouldn't the status be "CONFIRMED" rather than "NEW"?
There is status called confirmed but rather rhe new status is the confirmed
state.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
--- Comment #6 from Ted Lyngmo ---
@Andrew Pinski: Shouldn't the status be "CONFIRMED" rather than "NEW"?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110628
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
The testcase was, for many years, not checking what it was intended to since
Invalid sums are now output only with ...-details-blocks dumps and not by
default.
It passes for me. Can you please attach -fdump-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110624
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110624
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 55523
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55523&action=edit
Patch for testing
I tested this (by bootstrapping GCC with it) on x86_64 darwin21 with Xcode
14.3.
FWIW; The re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110580
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b76d71564925abcabe6f5ad61d904b23c682cdfb
commit r14-2433-gb76d71564925abcabe6f5ad61d904b23c682cdfb
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110629
Bug ID: 110629
Summary: Bug in assignment of derived type with deferred length
character component
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110170
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5c64efb1367459dbc2d2e29856f23908cb503c1
commit r14-2432-ge5c64efb1367459dbc2d2e29856f23908cb503c1
Author: liuhongt
Date: Tue Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93595
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ted at lyncon dot se
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107430
Bug 107430 depends on bug 110604, which changed state.
Bug 110604 Summary: template argument deduction failed with decltype(lambda)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110604
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110604
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110170
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #13)
> There's a typo at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/g%2B%2B.target/
> i386/pr110170.C;h=e638b12a5ee2264ecef77acca86432a9f24b103b;
> h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110628
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110628
Bug ID: 110628
Summary: [14 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/update-threading.c
fails after r14-2383-g768f00e3e84123
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||duyang.seu at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89793
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107013
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109403
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Jahns ---
Just for cross-referencing:
In the meantime, I found that someone else also ran into this problem when
using fat objects with binutils nm:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24326
https://stac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> > Possibly walking the symbols in reverse order to release them would fix
> > this.
> >
> It seems to work:
>
> diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55500|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110627
Bug ID: 110627
Summary: m68k: “Tried to convert PC relative branch to absolute
jump” while building iconvdata/iso-2022-jp.c from
glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110624
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
> actually, we already have a config test for -platform_version, which is what
> clang passes to ld. First, I'll take a look at enabling that (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #11)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10)
> > But Zack's reason against using __nonnull is __nonnull may cause unwanted
> > optimizations to *the user code*.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10)
> But Zack's reason against using __nonnull is __nonnull may cause unwanted
> optimizations to *the user code*.
GCC already offers options to control function call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110626
--- Comment #2 from Javier Martín ---
Note: when I said that the output of gfortran-11 is "correct", it is in
reference to this specific issue. In particular, the output of gfortran-11
seems to be affected by bug 105170, which is a separate prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4736ddd11874fe215662ac18877ce8eded1f5976
commit r14-2430-g4736ddd11874fe215662ac18877ce8eded1f5976
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110624
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
actually, we already have a config test for -platform_version, which is what
clang passes to ld. First, I'll take a look at enabling that (in which case
the mmacosx_version_min is not needed).
I take it that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #9)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > > I think a -f... option to disable the code generation effects would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110624
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
> OK. (I do not have enough hardware to install 14 or xc15 at present).
You don't depend on macOS 14 here, fortunately: xc 15 still supports
macOS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110624
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
OK. (I do not have enough hardware to install 14 or xc15 at present).
I guess we just add a configuration test for it and then make the link line
dependent; will have a go on D21+XC14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110170
--- Comment #13 from Antony Polukhin ---
There's a typo at
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/g%2B%2B.target/i386/pr110170.C;h=e638b12a5ee2264ecef77acca86432a9f24b103b;hb=d41a57c46df6f8f7dae0c0a8b349e734806a837b#l87
It sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110626
--- Comment #1 from Javier Martín ---
Contextual/environment information: I could reproduce the issue with gfortran
13.1, running in both Debian Sid and MSYS2 UCRT64 on Windows 10 22H2.
In Debian:
> $ gfortran-13 -v
> Using built-in specs.
> CO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106884
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
To clarify for the original testcase, ifcombine combines the two bit tests
(x & (1<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110626
Bug ID: 110626
Summary: Duplicated finalization in derived
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
Bug ID: 110625
Summary: [AArch64] Vect: SLP fails to vectorize a loop as the
reduction_latency calculated by new costs is too large
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #9 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > I think a -f... option to disable the code generation effects would make
> > more sense than adding another attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #8 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #7 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Hi Xi, Richard!
On 2023-07-11 10:34, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
>
> --- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Anyway I'm already too frustrated abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110624
Bug ID: 110624
Summary: Xcode 15 ld warns about -macosx_version_min
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 110616 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110613
--- Comment #3 from LIU Hao ---
There are some more cases about loading adjacent bitfields; not sure whether I
should create new PRs or paste them here. They seem highly related to the
aliasing characteristics of `unsigned char`; if I inject
`__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I think a -f... option to disable the code generation effects would make
> more sense than adding another attribute kind.
Then maybe we'd just add a -D_GLIBC_NONNU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||malat at debian dot org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110622
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Mathi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110557
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> Fixed for 14 and 13.2.
There is a test suite issue in the committed patch, fixed at r14-2427 and
r13-7555.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110620
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I think a -f... option to disable the code generation effects would make more
sense than adding another attribute kind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-11
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
