https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
>
> --- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #7)
> Can you elaborate on what you consider a correct approach?
I think this optimization is incorrect and should be active only under -Ofast.
I can offer two ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110789
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] internal |[13 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110789
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lezoch ---
In the passed days, I have further investigated the issue:
the backtrace leads to: 0xba137d real_from_string(real_value*, char const*)
../../gcc/real.cc:2110 which is the fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
>
> Alexander Monakov changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Copy list initialisation of |[13/14 Regression] Copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110807
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Slightly reduced:
#include
std::vector byCallSpread;
void f()
{
byCallSpread = {true};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110809
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Ed Catmur from comment #5)
> The original code is valid. A reduced valid case would be:
> ```
> template struct S {};
> template struct bucket {};
> template
> int find_indices_impl(bucket co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109899
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced further (which shows PR 110810 is the same here):
```
struct class1 {
class1();
~class1();
};
using array = class1[1];
template
void f()
{
array{};
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cuzdav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110810
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110810
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
You don't even need it to be a new or even ~X there:
```
struct Foo {
Foo() {}
~Foo() {}
};
struct X {
Foo data[4];
};
template
void f() {
X{};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110809
--- Comment #5 from Ed Catmur ---
The original code is valid. A reduced valid case would be:
```
template struct S {};
template struct bucket {};
template
int find_indices_impl(bucket const &);
struct HashTable : bucket, 1>, bucket, 2> {};
au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110810
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88160
Vincent Riviere changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent.riviere at freesbee
dot fr
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110798
--- Comment #5 from miles <13958014620 at 139 dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I almost positive this was fixed by r14-159-g03cebd304955a6 which was
> > backported to GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110809
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note if we do:
```
struct A{}; struct B{};
template struct S {};
template struct bucket {};
template
int find_indices_impl(bucket const &);
using HashTable = bucket, 1>;
auto t = find_indices_impl>(HashTa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110809
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I reduced it to an invalid code (I don't know if the original was valid or
not):
```
template struct S {};
template struct bucket {};
template
int find_indices_impl(bucket const &);
using HashTable = buck
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110776
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110776
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98675
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fdbd7d6fa5e0a76898dd66658934e3184111680
commit r14-2773-g9fdbd7d6fa5e0a76898dd66658934e3184111680
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96630
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fdbd7d6fa5e0a76898dd66658934e3184111680
commit r14-2773-g9fdbd7d6fa5e0a76898dd66658934e3184111680
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70331
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fdbd7d6fa5e0a76898dd66658934e3184111680
commit r14-2773-g9fdbd7d6fa5e0a76898dd66658934e3184111680
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b8266af71c19a0bd7db4d08c8d2ee3c33214508c
commit r14-2772-gb8266af71c19a0bd7db4d08c8d2ee3c33214508c
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110809
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #5)
> This trips Valgrind's data race detector (valgrind --tool=helgrind) too. So
> I don't think checking SANITIZE_THREAD is the correct approach.
Can you elabora
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110803
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110803
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67357270772b9131f1780267485c9eba0331bd6f
commit r14-2767-g67357270772b9131f1780267485c9eba0331bd6f
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> I'm suggesting to not fix it ;)
Can you explain why ?
It doesn't look difficult to fix to me, and I don't see any downsides.
> That said, is TSAN a useful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68569
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55635
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55635&action=edit
Patch
This patch fixes the testcases in this PR and regtests OK, except for the
necessary minor adju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84542
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This affects std::random_shuffle in libstdc++, which only warns with clang, not
gcc. The attribute needs to be on the first declaration to work with gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110802
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not sure why that didn't show up when I searched, thanks Andrew!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68569
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=108960
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108960
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39004608e79b68fe7615a026ce58dea646dba20e
commit r14-2765-g39004608e79b68fe7615a026ce58dea646dba20e
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110776
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110776
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110810
Bug ID: 110810
Summary: ICE in check_noexcept_r, at cp/except.cc:1068
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110809
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110809
Bug ID: 110809
Summary: ICE: in unify, at cp/pt.cc:25226 with floating-point
NTTPs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110808
--- Comment #1 from Silviu Vrinceanu ---
Created attachment 55633
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55633&action=edit
Archive with preprocessed files *.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110808
Bug ID: 110808
Summary: [modules] Internal Compiler Error in
check_mergeable_decl
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110807
Bug ID: 110807
Summary: Copy list initialisation of a vector raises a
warning with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110382
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] internal |[13 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110382
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e424febfbcb27c21a7fe3a137e614765f9cf9d2
commit r14-2762-g6e424febfbcb27c21a7fe3a137e614765f9cf9d2
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #10 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6)
> > Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test
> > runs? Shouldn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110806
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110806
Bug ID: 110806
Summary: Suggest this-> for dependent base classes in more
contexts
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
proc add_options_for_ieee { flags } {
if { [istarget alpha*-*-*]
|| [istarget sh*-*-*] } {
return "$flags -mieee"
}
if { [istarget rx-*-*] } {
return "$flags -mnofpu"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6)
> Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test
> runs? Shouldn't there be a call to feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT) at the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #7 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #5)
> OK, so it signals FE_INVALID on the first test. Can you run this with the
> same options, and see what happens?
It ran normally:
thiago.baue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test runs?
Shouldn't there be a call to feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT) at the start of the
test?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110643
psykose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alice at ayaya dot dev
--- Comment #10 from p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
OK, so it signals FE_INVALID on the first test. Can you run this with the same
options, and see what happens?
---
#include
#include
void
ftrue (float x, float y)
{
if (!__builtin_iseqsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #4 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
Thanks for looking into this.
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #3)
> Do the failure only occur at -Os?
Only at -Os. The FAILs I mentioned in the bug report are the only ones that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
Mathieu Malaterre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||malat at debian dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110805
Bug ID: 110805
Summary: g++ crash on modules with exported class providing
string constant with obscure content
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84542
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-25
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110802
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84542
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
--- Comment #3 from psykose ---
oh wow, completely identical! i didn't find that somehow, thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110803
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110280
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alice at ayaya dot dev
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Do the failure only occur at -Os? Does it pass at -O0, -O1, -O2?
And could you possibly run builtin-iseqsig-1.c under gdb and obtain a
backtrace?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110792
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
--- Comment #1 from psykose ---
forgot to mention, but this is on alpine linux.
i can't seem to reproduce this with g++13 '13.1.0' on debian sid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110804
Bug ID: 110804
Summary: [13 regression] eliminate_stmt ICE on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55596|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110803
Bug ID: 110803
Summary: new test case gcc.c-torture/execute/pr109986.c in
r14-2751-g2a3556376c69a1 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102493
--- Comment #1 from John Eivind Helset ---
ran into this today as well with:
```cpp
struct X{
void f(char){}
};
template
struct Y{};
template
struct Y{};
template
struct Y{};
Y<&X::f> y;
```
using gcc 13.1.1, clang trunk accepted same code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71065
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Fortran
===
Should be complete with:
* the commit r14-2754-g2e31fe431b08b0 in comment 5
(checking for tailing executable statements + tailing)
* A follow-up testcase fix in commit r14-2759-g5065698049
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71065
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09dda270380fe13e7b4722305cb1122df1f779a0
commit r14-2761-g09dda270380fe13e7b4722305cb1122df1f779a0
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110725
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09dda270380fe13e7b4722305cb1122df1f779a0
commit r14-2761-g09dda270380fe13e7b4722305cb1122df1f779a0
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
>
> --- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110802
Bug ID: 110802
Summary: Missing warning for attribute deprecated on a function
template definition with a previous declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110790
--- Comment #5 from Roger Sayle ---
I'll add this testcase to the testsuite, when I apply a corrected version of my
QImode offset patch to mainline. On the bright side, we'll be generating more
efficient code for gmp's refmpn_tstbit by using th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110776
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, linkw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110776
>
> --- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110801
Bug ID: 110801
Summary: std::format code runs slower than equivalent {fmt}
code
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110739
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Explicit instantiation declarations+definitions might help, both in
and .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108099
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||13958014620 at 139 dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110798
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110798
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to miles from comment #0)
> typedef char ch_t;
> assert( sizeof(unsigned char) == 1); //right
> assert( sizeof(ch_t) == 1 ); //right
> assert( sizeof(unsigned ch_t) ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The data race is harmless as we don't use the value.
&& (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_THREAD) == 0
is not right, it should be
&& !sanitize_flags_p (SANITIZE_THREAD)
or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110800
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[gcn] ICE (segfault)|[gcn] ICE (segfault)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> We consider introducing load data races OK, what's the difference here?
This is a load vs. store data race.
> There are other passes that would do similar thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110800
Bug ID: 110800
Summary: [gcn] ICE (segfault) 'during RTL pass: jump' in
delete_trivially_dead_insns -> count_reg_usage
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
--- Comment #15 from Roger Sayle ---
Hi Richard,
There's another patch awaiting review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625282.html
and I've another follow-up after that currently regression testing...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110587
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
compile-time is back to the first jump caused by r14-2337-g37a231cc7594d1,
thanks Roger. We still have
LRA non-specific : 3.53 ( 75%)
at -O0 here which Rogers followup patch will im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110798
--- Comment #2 from miles <13958014620 at 139 dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I almost positive this was fixed by r14-159-g03cebd304955a6 which was
> backported to GCC 13 branch r13-7277-ga713aa4f47ac1e (for 13.2.0) .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC rejects std::template |template keyword used as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #22 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #20)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> > Sure, I can kind of see the usefulness elsewhere. Just for this particular
> > issue it doesn't seem nec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110799
Bug ID: 110799
Summary: [tsan] False positive due to -fhoist-adjacent-loads
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] The |[12 Regression] The reusult
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110798
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Keywords|
98 matches
Mail list logo
