https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119134
Bug ID: 119134
Summary: ICE segfault on capturing lambda in fold expression in
requires clause
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119119
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0, 9.1.0
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119131
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 60666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60666&action=edit
auto-reduced testcase showing a similar issues with +Int
The other (cvise-reduced) testcase shows a similar iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119119
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60665
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60665&action=edit
reduced
Finally was able to remove all of the lambdas and indirections.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119119
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60664&action=edit
Semi reduced
I am still trying to reduce it further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #7 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> > > It happens at:
> > >
> > > trying to combine definition of r94 in:
> > >1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
I noticed some double-counting of cost in group-candidate (regarding loop
invariant expressions), this modification reduces the number of instructions
executed by ~8% for exchange_r binary compiled with -marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119133
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
ch64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.1 20250305 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119084
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43d777078387ab2c4aabe526f6ee0ff13055e0b6
commit r14-11389-g43d777078387ab2c4aabe526f6ee0ff13055e0b6
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
More simplified test case:
int x;
struct Type {
unsigned SubclassData : 24;
} y;
void test(void) {
x = y.SubclassData * 37;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> > It happens at:
> >
> > trying to combine definition of r94 in:
> >15: r94:DI=r92:DI<<0x2&0xfffc
> > REG_DEAD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #4 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> It happens at:
>
> trying to combine definition of r94 in:
>15: r94:DI=r92:DI<<0x2&0xfffc
> REG_DEAD r92:DI
> into:
>17: r96:DI=sign_extend(r87:SI+r9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
It happens at:
trying to combine definition of r94 in:
15: r94:DI=r92:DI<<0x2&0xfffc
REG_DEAD r92:DI
into:
17: r96:DI=sign_extend(r87:SI+r94:DI#0)
REG_DEAD r94:DI
REG_DEAD r87:SI
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
--- Comment #1 from chenglulu ---
This patch can fix the problem.
However, there are some parts that I haven't quite understood yet.
```
diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.md
index 90c475ef0c0..80b2f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119131
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But e.g. 0.0e-12df shouldn't be treated like that.
As can be seen on
_Decimal32 a = 0.0e-12df;
_Decimal32 b = 0.0e-98df;
_Decimal32 c = 0.0e-99df;
_Decimal32 d = 0.0e-100df;
_Decimal32 e = 0.0e-101df;
_Decim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119131
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
This is a latent issue with zero handling for decimal float, this looks wrong:
/* Return TRUE if rtx X is immediate constant 0.0 (but not in Decimal
Floating Point). */
bool
aarch64_float_const_zero_rtx_p (rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, the most important one is the C standard, e.g. in C99 in 6.5.6/8
... If both the pointer
operand and the result point to elements of the same array object, or one past
the last
element of the array obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Peter Damianov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter0x44 at disroot dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118998
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b43154b90be6a2f691b98d4e395c07ac6c7045c
commit r15-7845-g1b43154b90be6a2f691b98d4e395c07ac6c7045c
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
--- Comment #4 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Take the address of one outside of the array is valid and well defined.
>
> That is:
> &p->array[3];
>
> is always valid and well defined.
This isn't about taking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
On &p->array[size + 1];
The instrument is to make sure that would form a valid range of the index.
Which is only 0...size.
The instrumentation is not done on the pointer deference later on either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113076
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115402
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
And for reference, this is built with: -O2 -Wall -fstrict-flex-arrays=3
-fsanitize=bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119132
Bug ID: 119132
Summary: off-by-one error in -fsanitizer=bounds when addressing
a pointer instead of an integral
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115402
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dangelog at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119110
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I hope this is fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119110
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c21d5a3591fd761872e18278e1cd8ec18e36d4cb
commit r15-7842-gc21d5a3591fd761872e18278e1cd8ec18e36d4cb
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
> > index fbe7333fd71..ed29623fcdf 100644
> > ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119131
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In cmpelim dump I still see
(insn 176 7 8 2 (set (reg:SD 47 v15 [207])
(const_double:SD 0E-101 [N/A])) "pr119131.c":11:24 78 {*movsd_aarch64}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (const_double:SD 0E-101 [N/A])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15 Regression] ICE: in |[15 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115580
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13 regression] null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 115580, which changed state.
Bug 115580 Summary: [12/13 regression] null pointer warning from an unevaluated
context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115580
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115580
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c635072ae68f60f14333cf113e75fa25a55becf
commit r14-11387-g8c635072ae68f60f14333cf113e75fa25a55becf
Author: Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
> index fbe7333fd71..ed29623fcdf 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115580
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:459c8a55567b06522e4b9cc0a4ef62f9d3024526
commit r15-7839-g459c8a55567b06522e4b9cc0a4ef62f9d3024526
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119131
Bug ID: 119131
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE: in get_attr_type, at
config/aarch64/aarch64.md:17054 at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7)
> Fixed for GCC 15 so far. The ramp generation is completely different in
> earlier versions, the code that would need to change in 14 and below is in
> morph_fn_to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116572
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |ipa
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> The following adjustment to the logic around the bounds-checking code
> fixes the issue:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98533
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the presence in TYPE_FIELDS is desirable, perhaps either we should repeat
fixup_type_variants (or just update TYPE_FIELDS on all variants manually) in
the
if (--parser->num_classes_being_defined == 0)
blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119129
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.3|---
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119130
Bug ID: 119130
Summary: Results of vec_pack_to_short_fp32 intrinsic are not in
the expected order on big-endian POWER9
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98533
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
struct S {
template void foo (int = [] {}) const;
};
struct T {
static void bar (const S &);
};
The earlier finish_member_declaration calls are followed by finish_struct ->
finish_struct_1 -> finish_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119129
--- Comment #2 from eczbek.void at gmail dot com ---
Is the ice-on-invalid-code tag correct? The code looks valid to me and it seems
to compile on Clang.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119129
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20250305/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging
--enable-libstdcxx-backtrace=yes --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu --disable-bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119128
Bug ID: 119128
Summary: [C++26] Implement P1673R13 A free function linear
algebra interface based on the BLAS
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119127
Bug ID: 119127
Summary: ICE in decompose, at rtl.h:2312 during RTL pass:
late_combine
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|ICE when building
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98533
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
Better reduced testcase from dup PR 119123.
```
struct MCSchedModel {
template void computeInstrLatency(int = [] {}) const;
};
struct LSUnitBase {
LSUnitBase(const MCSchedModel &);
};
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98533
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 119123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119123
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It doesn't have to be a ctor in which the first class is referenced, e.g.
struct S {
template void foo (int = [] {}) const;
};
struct T {
static void bar (const S &);
};
ICEs too. But method/static mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119123
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119123
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-05
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> > > Fixed, thanks!
> >
> > The fix for LWG 4082 is the missing viewable_ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #9)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> > Fixed, thanks!
>
> The fix for LWG 4082 is the missing viewable_range constraint for one pack
> case.
Where does that con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119123
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
```
struct MCSchedModel {
template void computeInstrLatency(int = [] {}) const;
};
struct LSUnitBase {
LSUnitBase(const MCSchedModel &);
};
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a4f1e5f91a69434f2ec0d95c91bad2c928dcff3
commit r14-11386-g1a4f1e5f91a69434f2ec0d95c91bad2c928dcff3
Author: Richard Sandifo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115402
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dangelog at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119126
Bug ID: 119126
Summary: [C++26] P0792R14 function_ref: a type-erased callable
reference
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110357
--- Comment #1 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
I have posted a preliminary patch, but it needs a rebase and more work
(basically some implementation design choice).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119125
Bug ID: 119125
Summary: [C++26] P2548R6 copyable_function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110352
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also:
Fix submdspan for C++26 https://wg21.link/P3355R1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In the RISCV case it is optimized because the copying of the structure into the
argument area is done using 4 DImode loads + stores rather than 2 TImode loads
+ stores.
And in that case it is actually cse1 w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119124
Bug ID: 119124
Summary: ICE: verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113310
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-05
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118874
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119099
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sorry my bad. Conflated bi-direction dataflow with the sets
expanding/contracting. We don't do bi-directional dataflow in here.
In this case it's the dataflow sets contracting and expanding and never
con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117364
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e576d5b64ae92432fc2749b8f66105cee8db356
commit r15-7837-g7e576d5b64ae92432fc2749b8f66105cee8db356
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111551
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
>From gcov dump, the normal train run exercises loop:
742632: 2953: switch ( method ) {
742632: 2954:case ConvolveMorphology:
-: 2955:/* Weighted Average of pixels using r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118874
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e576d5b64ae92432fc2749b8f66105cee8db356
commit r15-7837-g7e576d5b64ae92432fc2749b8f66105cee8db356
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118076
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97986
--- Comment #10 from Joseph S. Myers ---
I think my previous comment still applies: when an array type is passed to
va_arg, evaluate side effects of the arguments, warn and (except for non-VLAs
in C90 mode) generate a call to __builtin_trap that'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118942
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116080
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118874
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #17)
> I wonder about moving much of the return_temp handling to
> gimplify_modify_expr...
This runs into ordering trouble with cp_gimplify_init_expr, which elides t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118942
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e17b356a78635e66d1a895b86fbcc0bde0589bb
commit r14-11385-g6e17b356a78635e66d1a895b86fbcc0bde0589bb
Author: Hannes Brau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115218
--- Comment #9 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #8)
> Fixed, thanks!
The fix for LWG 4082 is the missing viewable_range constraint for one pack
case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102954
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108083
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118232
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111750
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115835
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
