https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112598
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56700|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112830
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Is there a valid testcase that has __memx as the destination? Or is there
> an address space with similar constraints that allows non-const accesses?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112597
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56699|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107016
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|106358 |
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112858
Bug ID: 112858
Summary: nvptx: 'unresolved symbol __cxa_thread_atexit_impl'
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112857
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
careful about overflow. Also note compares against zero might be cheaper (but
that's eventually an RTL expansion thing).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56698|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
Could you give me a test ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112583
--- Comment #14 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, that's the culprit. I already pushed a fix yesterday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112849
Bug ID: 112849
Summary: btf: wrong BTF_KIND_DATSEC entries for extern
variables without known section
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112849
--- Comment #1 from David Faust ---
Simple reproducer. Note how clang does not emit an entry
in BTF_KIND_DATASEC for 'extern int a'.
$ cat a.c
extern int a;
int b;
int foo (void)
{
return a + b;
}
$ ~/toolchains/bpf/bin/bpf-unknown-none-gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107687
Bug 107687 depends on bug 110997, which changed state.
Bug 110997 Summary: [13/14 Regression] internal compiler error: in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.cc:8005
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100988
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=112757
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56713|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 110997, which changed state.
Bug 110997 Summary: [13/14 Regression] internal compiler error: in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.cc:8005
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89270
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4dd02d62abd76a69f65d9f3fed6febeed53fc90a
commit r14-6134-g4dd02d62abd76a69f65d9f3fed6febeed53fc90a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112852
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112852
Bug ID: 112852
Summary: [14 Regression] RISCV ICE: vsetvl pass: in
partial_subreg_p, at rtl.h:3187 on rv64gcv_zvl512b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86869
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e00c00730912cd6072954cd2c29ca44e33dbb598
commit r14-6133-ge00c00730912cd6072954cd2c29ca44e33dbb598
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112827
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50f2a3370d177f8fe9bea0461feb710523e048a2
commit r14-6132-g50f2a3370d177f8fe9bea0461feb710523e048a2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112756
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56712|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112707
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #10)
> (In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #9)
>
>> My question is: can "fctid" be executed on powerpc7450 such a 32bit
>> processor? If it's supported, should the asse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50f2a3370d177f8fe9bea0461feb710523e048a2
commit r14-6132-g50f2a3370d177f8fe9bea0461feb710523e048a2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112857
Bug ID: 112857
Summary: Missing optimzation: fold (b + ~a) > 0 to a - b ＜ -1
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112855
Bug ID: 112855
Summary: [14] RISC-V vector: overwriting stack args
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940
Bug 98940 depends on bug 107687, which changed state.
Bug 107687 Summary: [C++23] P2564 - consteval needs to propagate up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107687
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107687
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112658
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE: |[12/13 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112850
Bug ID: 112850
Summary: -Wanalyzer-tainted-allocation-size false positive seen
in Linux kernel's sound/core/rawmidi.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112754
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56710|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Chris Elrod from comment #6)
> Hongtao Liu, I do think that one should ideally be able to get optimal
> codegen when using 512-bit builtin vectors or vector intrinsics, without
> needing to set `-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
--- Comment #8 from Chris Elrod ---
> If it's designed the way you want it to be， another issue would be like,
> should we lower 512-bit vector builtins/intrinsic to ymm/xmm when
> -mprefer-vector-width=256, the answer is we'd rather not.
To
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
Bug ID: 112853
Summary: RISC-V: RVV: SPEC2017 525.x264 regression
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112856
Bug ID: 112856
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building clustal-omega
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Note the testcase which ICEs is now:
> ```
> typedef int v32qi __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=core-avx2", "default"))) v32q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111678
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109689
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 111678 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112856
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112856
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
reduced C version:
```
double *SVD_A_0;
int SVD_i, SVD_j, SVD_k, SVD_n;
double SVD_f;
void SVD() {
SVD_i = SVD_n - 1;
for (; SVD_i; SVD_i--) {
for (; SVD_j; SVD_j++) {
SVD_f = SVD_k = SVD_i;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112854
Bug ID: 112854
Summary: [14] RISCV ICE: expand: in store_integral_bit_field,
at expmed.cc:1049 on rv32gcv_zvl1024b
--param=riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112755
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56711|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112781
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112599
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56701|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
--- Comment #1 from Vineet Gupta ---
Currently bisecting.
The issue happens at an indexed load insn:
=> 0x6f656 :vluxei64.v v2,(a3),v2
The src reg v2 is different in good vs. failing case
bad case
--
info reg v2
b =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112809
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 56791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56791&action=edit
a simpler testcase using only two variables
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O testcase.c
during GIMPLE pass: bitintl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112851
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
Confirm. I will take a look at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 70819, which changed state.
Bug 70819 Summary: constexpr error location wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70819
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112707
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
--- Comment #2 from Vineet Gupta ---
Bisected to
commit 97ddebb6b4f6b132b0a8072b26d030077b418963
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Thu Nov 23 18:55:03 2023 +0800
RISC-V: Refine some codes of riscv-v.cc[NFC]
This patch is NFC patch to refin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112851
Bug ID: 112851
Summary: [14 Regression] RISCV ICE: vsetvl pass: in
partial_subreg_p, at rtl.h:3187 on rv32gcv_zvl256b
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112854
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
I have noticed in full coverage testing.
It's mask bit field related issue again.
Robin could you take a look at it ?
I think you are the better one than me to take care of it.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110997
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
commit r14-6129-g1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107687
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
commit r14-6129-g1f1c432226cf3db399b2a2a627e3c5720b02b1d6
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112853
--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong ---
Confirm. I will have a look at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 56790
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56790&action=edit
auxially patch to avid the trap
refining a range is fine... the only issue we are really running into here
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112813
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111972
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:886f256ce3be4aa85f30af88558f0dfcb8003300
commit r14-6126-g886f256ce3be4aa85f30af88558f0dfcb8003300
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112801
Patrick O'Neill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112781
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13?/14 regression] ICE in |[13/14 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112821
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112816
--- Comment #9 from Andrei Elovikov ---
Created attachment 56789
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56789&action=edit
Another reproducer, now using short instead of int
Once the fix is ready, please verify the "uint16_t" versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, refining a range should be ok and I thought one would just flush caches
somewheres, so that next time it can be computed in more detail.
But, some local changes could be just temporary state until more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
--- Comment #6 from Chris Elrod ---
Hongtao Liu, I do think that one should ideally be able to get optimal codegen
when using 512-bit builtin vectors or vector intrinsics, without needing to set
`-mprefer-vector-width=512` (and, currently, also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #5)
> > what do you mean? when a statement is changed, it may generate a different
> > range than it did before,
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Of course it fails with r14-6114 as that is the source. Doh! I was looking at
pr112827.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112848
Bug ID: 112848
Summary: [14 regression] ICE compiling
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-16.c after
r14-6114-gde0ab339a79535
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105616
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jg at jguk dot org
--- Comment #5 from Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112842
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #5)
> what do you mean? when a statement is changed, it may generate a different
> range than it did before,
No, that would be a bug. If some IL changes need to ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > what?! Ick. It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap caches
> > _at most_.
>
> So it does
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112847
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 56788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56788&action=edit
gcc14-pr112845.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112847
Bug ID: 112847
Summary: [14 Regression] nvptx: 'FAIL:
g++.dg/cpp2a/concepts-explicit-inst1.C -std=c++20
scan-assembler _Z1gI1XEvT_', 'scan-assembler
_Z1gI1YEvT_'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112846
Bug ID: 112846
Summary: [14 Regression] nvptx: 'FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon6.C
-std=c++20 scan-assembler
_Z5dummyIXtl8wrapper1IdEtlNS1_Ut_Edi9RightNametlNS2_Ut
_Edi9Rig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112785
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c2ea80a4ffbddc0bc29f5badaf2ae43e59483b2
commit r14-6120-g0c2ea80a4ffbddc0bc29f5badaf2ae43e59483b2
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > what?! Ick. It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap caches
> > _at most_.
>
> So it does
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> what?! Ick. It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap caches
> _at most_.
So it does
// Only update if it already had a value.
if (m_cach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112845
Bug ID: 112845
Summary: ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2804 with -Os
-fcf-protection -c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112431
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:018ba3ac952bed4ae01344c060360f13f7cc084a
commit r14-6118-g018ba3ac952bed4ae01344c060360f13f7cc084a
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Dec 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105510
Andy Shevchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andy.shevchenko at gmail dot
com
---
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
