https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119350
Bug ID: 119350
Summary: flexible array initialization is allowed when
initialized with `{}` with C23
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119349
Bug ID: 119349
Summary: [15 Regression] polymorphic array dummy argument with
function result actual argument in elemental function
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117452
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119348
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
Ever confir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119348
--- Comment #2 from nihui ---
aha, just found that pointer casting works in gcc :)
though clang seems unhappy about it
```c
#include
vfloat32m8_t convert_vfloat32m1x8_to_vfloat32m8(vfloat32m1x8_t tuple)
{
return *(vfloat32m8_t*)(&tuple);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119348
--- Comment #1 from nihui ---
tested commit
gcc 7efe3aa9b5d4d7aba3736d1393b007705522dc45
binutils cf4fdbd491bbf60267d4ba6ec3f533944e376e6c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119348
Bug ID: 119348
Summary: risc-v vector tuple casting optimization regression
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #20 from Levi Zim ---
I have minified it to the following commands:
git -C gcc checkout 1cd744a6828f6ab9179906d16434ea40b6404737
mkdir gcc-build && cd $_
export CFLAGS="-march=rv64gc -mabi=lp64d -O2 -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -g
-ffil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119347
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
::xform<0>;
int main() {}
```
```
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20250317/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging
--enable-libstdcxx-backtrace=yes --build=x86_64-lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119222
--- Comment #14 from Gwen Fu ---
and I will send the patch at the same time
/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20250317/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
--enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119222
--- Comment #13 from Gwen Fu ---
When executing the conversion_warning function, if you do not add any of
the three compilation options -Warn-conversion or -Warn_sign_conversion or
-Warn-float-conversion, the function will return directly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119345
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60799
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60799&action=edit
C++17 testcase
; });
}.template operator()<0>();
}
int main() {
f();
}
```
```
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20250317/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging
--enable-lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> This stopped failing for me around:
>
> commit 2bc3ea210565dc7cdbba9adb31acceefed406254
> Author: Sam James
> Date: Fri Nov 22 15:20:45 2024 +
>
> saving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> So it is not related at all to s2geometry sources as far as I can tell.
Except for the `pragma GCC optimize` :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60797&action=edit
reduced.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux-gnu |powerpc*-linux-gnu
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.2.0
Target|powerpc-apple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60798
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60798&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
> > I didn't find this commit in gcc trunk?
>
> Ah, sorry for confusion: it's from my local test results. Only the date
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
--- Comment #13 from Novel ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Before `DEBUG_LOG_INFO("2 Data %p\n", dest.Data);`
> is there any calls before hand? Like say to memcpy? or anything that might
> have the nonnull attribute on it and u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the quick and dirty short function testcase just includes absl and
libstdc++ classes (note is not a full testcase just what I have done so far
manually to testcase):
```
void BuildPolygonBoundaries() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Trying to reduce it.
But yes I can reproduce it on the trunk and -O2 works but -Os does not.
This might be due to the code savings with the C++ front-end and constructors.
Or it could be something else.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Keywords|needs-source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119312
--- Comment #11 from Joseph S. Myers ---
A struct with a const field is not a modifiable lvalue in C, so it's not valid
to assign to it. Modifying a const field with memcpy / byte accesses would
probably also violate "If an attempt is made to mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Possibly wrong code |Possibly wrong code
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Or, to put it another way: you're familiar with the code enough to share those
comments about whether something is pure and so on, so it should be doable for
you to then replace the function names with some stu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(We also don't care if the reduced version has the same real typedefs and so on
as the original, as long as the reduced version reproduces it, of course.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
--- Comment #8 from Novel ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> Please try to reduce the relevant functions and we can take a look with a
> testcase.
I am not sure to what extend it is possible for you to make a testcase for it
because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 111379, which changed state.
Bug 111379 Summary: comparison between unequal pointers to void should be
illegal during constant evaluation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111379
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57419
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
r0-123716-g2e6491515ec153
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37208
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119338
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=119343
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
4.8.0 used to do something similar for has_f too. Maybe that can help someone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119344
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess we need
--- a/gcc/tree.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree.cc
@@ -4101,7 +4101,7 @@ skip_simple_arithmetic (tree expr)
computations if they actually occur. */
while (true)
{
- if (UNARY_CLASS_P (e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
--- Comment #3 from Sergey Fedorov ---
And result of running the command manually:
$ sudo /opt/local/bin/g++-mp-14 -v -save-temps -DABSL_MIN_LOG_LEVEL=1
-Ds2_EXPORTS -I/opt/local/libexec/openssl3/include
-I/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119211
Bug 119211 depends on bug 119213, which changed state.
Bug 119213 Summary: gcc/cobol/Make-lang.in: suspicious -DEXEC_LIB with
hardcoded lib64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119213
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119213
Robert Dubner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119327
--- Comment #2 from Sergey Fedorov ---
Created attachment 60796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60796&action=edit
Preprocessed source file which fails to compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119344
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119213
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robert Dubner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa68eb8d5687f8e0944512cbc8533a77cd312873
commit r15-8239-gaa68eb8d5687f8e0944512cbc8533a77cd312873
Author: Bob Dubner
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-17
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119344
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60795&action=edit
C++98 testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119343
Bug ID: 119343
Summary: No SFINAE for deleted explicit specializations
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Please try to reduce the relevant functions and we can take a look with a
testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119344
Bug ID: 119344
Summary: internal compiler error related to template parameters
and pointers to member functions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
--- Comment #6 from Novel ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Novel from comment #0)
>
> > ; CODE XREF from sym.IGNORE_THIS_ITS_FUNCTION_NAME @ 0x8bcc(x)
> > ; 0x28f58
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119342
Bug ID: 119342
Summary: block in rust-gcc.cc could use some comments
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119341
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
function_ptr_type uses it already for an example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119341
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
function_type_variadic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119341
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
a few others:
block_add_statements
block
function_set_parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119342
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119341
Bug ID: 119341
Summary: statement_list in rust-gcc.cc can use range for
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: internal-improvement
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119339
Bug ID: 119339
Summary: Allows invalid constexpr of addresses with references
initialized to itself
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117452
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> It's reported building gegl-0.4.56 on powerpc with GCC-14.2.0 triggers an
> ICE on the same line:
>
> https://buildit.aosc.io/logs/73101-gimp-3-ppc64el-power8-2025-03-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119334
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 119334 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119334
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Version|15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60794&action=edit
gegl_ctx.c.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119340
Bug ID: 119340
Summary: [14 regression] ICE when building gegl-0.4.52 on ppc64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119339
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119331
Bug ID: 119331
Summary: cobol: unimplemented exceptions abort compilation -
even if requested to NOT use them
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119285
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e0e17677afc1a93aa31b8b83849848b7bb52b9b
commit r15-8237-g8e0e17677afc1a93aa31b8b83849848b7bb52b9b
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119303
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96868
Méven changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meven at kde dot org
--- Comment #10 from Méven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119333
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
.cargo/ at top-level with:
.cargo/config.toml:
```
[net]
offline = true
```
and CARGO_HOME="${srcdir}/.cargo" or something like that would work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119325
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
I was wondering whether setting GCN_STACK_SIZE= would help; default is 32*1024.
Answer: it does not seem to help, but I noticed that from time to time,
it succeeds. I have a couple in a semi-row, but then 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117452
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119338
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In F2003 the same text appears as C626.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119325
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Some more testing:
Copying gfx908/libm.a of the 'failing' build directory to the install directory
+ re-compiling will make the binary fail, copying from the 'working' build
directory, it will work.
Thus,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615
--- Comment #25 from Sam James ---
Vlad, could you take a look? (It doesn't reproduce on trunk because it got
reverted, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615#c22).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119319
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> The -ftree-dump-original output shows an extra
> return statement for the listed target, which looks correlated. (I have not
> traced its target-spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119336
Bug ID: 119336
Summary: cobol: missing copybooks break parser
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119244
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe ---
did not succeed in testing on powerpc64le (it built OK, but the testsuite does
not run because of PR119308)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116731
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from Marek Pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119338
Bug ID: 119338
Summary: Type-spec in ALLOCATE of dummy with assumed length
shall use asterisk
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #23 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Matz :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:96698551b8e19fc33637908190f121e039301993
commit r15-8236-g96698551b8e19fc33637908190f121e039301993
Author: Michael Matz
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119286
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
More important than the missing self-assignment check and the missing copy
constructor, there's no destructor.
The missing check and copy ctor only matter if the type actually is assigned to
itself or cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119244
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60792|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119335
Bug ID: 119335
Summary: cobol frontend ignores -M
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: cobol
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119337
Bug ID: 119337
Summary: cobol: gcobc wrapper should deduce output name
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119334
Bug ID: 119334
Summary: error: loop variable '' creates a
copy from type 'const std::pair'
[-Werror=range-loop-construct]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119333
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119298
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Summary|538.imagick_r i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Why is the new array allocated for 1 + input.nec items?
Ah, I bet it's to handle the case where input.nec == 0. But that's not needed,
C++ allows new T[n] e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117452
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31362
stefan.tauner at gmx dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefan.tauner at gmx dot at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119330
Bug ID: 119330
Summary: [OpenMP] GCC wrongly rejects depend(out:var%a(1:10))
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, rejects-valid
Severity: nor
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
