https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116751
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, the "missing" write-after-write dependence is because the ref is outside
of array bounds so the alias oracle computes a max_size for the access of zero
and thus no aliasing. I guess thats OK (while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8590dcd318151336261f8381e1a24caece9e2375
commit r15-3678-g8590dcd318151336261f8381e1a24caece9e2375
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111527
--- Comment #21 from Sunil Dora ---
>From Andrew:
Sounds like the testcase needs to be changed. If you were not saving
around the file that was used for COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS in the previous
patches (with -save-temps), then that was broken.
Or i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|12.5
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] ICE on |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #269 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #267)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #264)
> > Very nice! So it seems indeed, splitting up the "mega move patterns" into
> > simpler ones where predicates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #268 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #265)
> Created attachment 59133 [details]
> a revised patch of 58883
>
> I noticed that I accidentally pushed unintended changes to the patch 58883
> and 59000.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115258
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116682
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116756
Bug ID: 116756
Summary: ICE from expand_expr_real_1 with recursive lambda and
constexpr if
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #267 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #264)
> Very nice! So it seems indeed, splitting up the "mega move patterns" into
> simpler ones where predicates are more closer to the actual constraints give
> bett
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #266 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 59134
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59134&action=edit
a revised patch of 59000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #265 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 59133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59133&action=edit
a revised patch of 58883
I noticed that I accidentally pushed unintended changes to the patch 58883 and
590
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #264 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #263)
> Created attachment 59132 [details]
> a patch rewriting movsh_ie_ra
>
> This patch splits movsf_ie_ra into several new patterns to remove
> match_scratch. Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #263 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 59132
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59132&action=edit
a patch rewriting movsh_ie_ra
This patch splits movsf_ie_ra into several new patterns to remove
match_scrat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89213
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a07ac151327f61963b092062eb8566dd0c6f0cd
commit r15-3676-g9a07ac151327f61963b092062eb8566dd0c6f0cd
Author: Michael Meissner
Date
||2024-09-18
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
issue 1 is only an issue with std::numeric_limits::min() and gets an
undefined sanitizer hit too.
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20240917/include/c++/15.0.0/bits/chrono.h:602:11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Issue 2: std println treats duration(54) as char '6' d2 "6s"
I think issue 2 is not an bug and it happens with libc++ too.
issue 1 does seem like a bug though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #18)
> This particular bug is resolved when building with an LRA-enabled gcc-15.
>
> See: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
Thanks for chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Please check out https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need. Can you attach a standalone
reproducer here, as well as preprocessed source? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #1 from Zartaj Majeed ---
Correct test case repo link
https://github.com/zmajeed/simpleprog/tree/main/gcc14_format_bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114622
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
oh, richi said that already..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114622
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
It's a middle-end warning which needs information from earlier passes. It's
indeed useless at -O0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116717
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87588
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[regression from GCC 12.4] |[13/14/15 Regression] GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note if I have refs_may_alias_p return true always, the code to check to see if
there was a write after write dependent store happening works and cselim does
nothing here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
Bug ID: 116755
Summary: format and print functions prepend extra minus sign
for min value of chrono duration type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like dr_may_alias_p is returning the wrong result.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
1: dump_data_dependence_relation(stdout, ddr) = (Data Dep:
#(Data Ref:
# bb: 12
# stmt: d[e.0_43] = _17;
# ref: d[e.0_43];
# base_object: d[e.0_43];
#)
#(Data Ref:
# bb: 12
# stmt: d[e.0_43] = _41;
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
So reading the code:
Check that there are no read-after-write or write-after-write dependencies
in THEN_BB.
/* Check that there are no read-after-write or write-after-write dependencies
in ELSE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116182
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116754
--- Comment #1 from df fd ---
Created attachment 59131
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59131&action=edit
struct __memcpyable usage in the std::ranges::copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116754
Bug ID: 116754
Summary: libstdc++ std::ranges::copy performance issue
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116753
Bug ID: 116753
Summary: [regression from GCC 12.4] GCC trunk (-O3) can't fold
a loop into a constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116534
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 regression] internal |[14 regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6d8445c85509b66a59aa6247ad7b2cfeab17725
commit r15-3674-gd6d8445c85509b66a59aa6247ad7b2cfeab17725
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116534
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ca486889b1b1c7e7bcbbca3b6caa103294ec07d
commit r15-3673-g7ca486889b1b1c7e7bcbbca3b6caa103294ec07d
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
LLVM fixed this in the same way:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/47355
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
So a gimple testcase does not fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> and maybe the obvious stuff too like not using __TIME__/__DATE__, the map
> source options, ...
Yep. It might make sense to list some of the GNU linker options that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116748
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
// PR c++/116748
namespace beman::optional26::tests {
struct empty;
}
void TestBody() {
using beman::optional26::tests::empty;
int empty;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116730
--- Comment #40 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Hime Haieto from comment #0)
> '/home/root/gcc/worktrees/14.2.0/build/votocon/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/
> libstdc++-v3/src/libbacktrace'
I assume that /home/root/gcc/worktrees/14.2.0 is a git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Actually started with r15-1163-g818e760528d436ea8f6c28ef620e2bb82d456ea1
Oh ok, I figured it was a DSE change which exposed it.
I am still trying to figure out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|--coverage generates random |New documentation section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116730
--- Comment #39 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
mkdir -p tt1/tt1
cd tt1/tt1
/home/apinski/src/tt1/gcc/worktrees/14.2.0/configure
--prefix=${HOME}/gcc-14.2.0
make -j16 && make install
```
This was my exact commands. I used with a non-relative path ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #5 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Eugene Rozenfeld from comment #4)
> AutoFDO does work. I made a number of fixes and improvements over the last
> several years, both in GCC (including fixing autoprofiledbootstrap) and in
> googl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116730
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109859
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116752
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 35557 ***
I think this specific case is a dup of PR 5, since it only affects C++20
mode.
Cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sinbal2l at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116744
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35557
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sinbal2l at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116752
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #4 from Eugene Rozenfeld ---
AutoFDO does work. I made a number of fixes and improvements over the last
several years, both in GCC (including fixing autoprofiledbootstrap) and in
google/autofdo that's used to build create_gcov. The c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116752
Bug ID: 116752
Summary: Implementation detail leakes to header -
"write" func is being pulled in
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I suppose we could do just:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -8201,8 +8201,11 @@ cxx_eval_constant_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
tree t,
TREE_TYPE (op), TREE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with:
commit b69ee50081ca7dbd034cc244cf4515285ca7aa72
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date: Wed Oct 11 10:57:06 2023 +1100
c++: Improve diagnostics for constexpr cast from void*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #13)
> looking like a GTY issue:
>
> (gdb) p target->u.fld[1]->rt_mem
> $7 = (mem_attrs *) 0xafafafaf
> (gdb) p target->u.fld[1]->rt_mem->align
>
> that seems to be the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
--- Comment #2 from Dávid Péter Jánosa ---
Thank you Andrew!
Your solution works for my practical use case and looking up the docs on the
option I have a better understanding of the phenomenon.
What documentation would you point me to if I'd l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not needed (in main) in C99 or later, GCC defaults to -std=gnu17.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is the first time I have seen someone actually using auto-fdo which I had
thought was still broken and not working.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I don't get an __builtin_unreachable() in GCC 14.1.0 nor 13.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116749
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe not ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bouncy12578 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
--- Comment #7 from Petr ---
The simplified test case looks good except for a missing return :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try using -frandom-seed=0 or someother number.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116751
Bug ID: 116751
Summary: GCC trunk (-O3) doesn't optimize a loop that can be
folded into a constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85716
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116676
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9046f9aeae0f926e7365d39809a80855e7dc184a
commit r12-10713-g9046f9aeae0f926e7365d39809a80855e7dc184a
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114622
Willy Tarreau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||w at 1wt dot eu
--- Comment #2 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
C testcase with unnecessary clutter removed:
#include
static inline float
clamp (float f)
{
__m128 v = _mm_set_ss (f);
__m128 zero = _mm_setzero_ps ();
__m128 greatest = _mm_set_ss (__FLT_MAX__);
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750
Bug ID: 116750
Summary: --coverage generates random .data.rel
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116749
Bug ID: 116749
Summary: program crash under -O3 optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116676
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8682dd76e31ee4bc4dede23c78d6d66de350e83
commit r13-9031-gc8682dd76e31ee4bc4dede23c78d6d66de350e83
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
looking like a GTY issue:
(gdb) p target->u.fld[1]->rt_mem
$7 = (mem_attrs *) 0xafafafaf
(gdb) p target->u.fld[1]->rt_mem->align
that seems to be the tell-tale value for a free ptr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116676
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1dc18250d82cd123fcf9aef0a95608e4ec63d58
commit r14-10675-gf1dc18250d82cd123fcf9aef0a95608e4ec63d58
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116676
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dfe0d4389a3ce43179563a63046ad3e74d615a08
commit r15-3672-gdfe0d4389a3ce43179563a63046ad3e74d615a08
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116492
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116748
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Reducing...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
hmm .. this is initialising the ramp return object (which is a handle) and when
I look at the to and from trees they seem to have the requisite alignment (the
from value is a return from operator new). I'm a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116726
--- Comment #8 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/663123.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116726
--- Comment #7 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Peter Damianov from comment #6)
> Another testcase:
> not an ICE, but I think rejects-valid
> ```
> typedef void f(struct s1);
> struct s1 {
> int f1;
> };
> typedef void f(struct s1);
> ```
>
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
