https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
> Occam's razor suggests we go with Paul's patch. Paul, do you want to handle
> the commit-ish work or I can do it for you. Just let me know.
I'll do the commit lat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119987
--- Comment #3 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Yes, it seems that MS is an improper subset of Plan9. I think MS is much closer
to what we want, anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117783
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Filed https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
We have
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr117547]$ cat x.c
#include
__mmask64
foo (__mmask64 d)
{
d = __builtin_ia32_kshiftridi (d, 0xff);
return d;
}
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr117547]$ make
/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119754
--- Comment #6 from Jiang An ---
Consider this example (https://godbolt.org/z/dGGE6o5qY):
```
#include
using namespace std;
template
struct require_valid_constant;
template
constexpr int consteval_validate_destruction(Fn op) {
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119987
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alx at kernel dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #27 from LIU Hao ---
Created attachment 61234
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61234&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119996
Bug ID: 119996
Summary: [modules] Inline reference to a TU-local entity is
nulled when used
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119995
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119995
--- Comment #1 from edison ---
Created attachment 61233
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61233&action=edit
spec cpu2017 config file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119995
Bug ID: 119995
Summary: 521.wrf_r module_bl_mynn.fppized.f90:(.text+0x3398):
undefined reference to `erf_'
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118553
Jianrong Zhao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||silverzhaojr at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #26 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #25)
> That's the difference between -mpreferred-stack-boundary and
> -mincoming-stack-boundary; I'm asking about -mstackrealign.
i386.opt:
mstackrealign
Target Var(ix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119994
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
Here's a similar example using an internal subroutine. The rejected
specification expression is also valid, as again THIS is accessible by host
association.
module foo
type :: bar
integer :: n
end t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #25 from Zeb Figura ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #24)
> (In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #23)
> > Only partly. The example in the initial code is fixed. However, if you
> > change it to aligned(8) instead of aligned(16),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119994
Bug ID: 119994
Summary: Valid specification expression in block rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119993
Bug ID: 119993
Summary: internal compiler error: populationSize.0 from
writePopulation referenced in readPopulation
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #24 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #23)
> Only partly. The example in the initial code is fixed. However, if you
> change it to aligned(8) instead of aligned(16), it no longer aligns. See
> comment 17.
>
> Usi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119990
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks very very much like PR 103984 even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||EH
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski -
/xieym/compiler/install/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 16.0.0 20250428 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -std=c2x file.c -o /dev/null
:6:22: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:19860
6 | for (int i = 0; i<(coun
able-checking --disable-multilib --disable-shared --disable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/data/xieym/compiler/install/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 16.0.0 20250428 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -std=c2x file.c -o /d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119990
--- Comment #3 from Connor Nolan ---
This was reduced from a file in a project I was working on:
https://godbolt.org/z/T4ozTPx3E
#include
#include
// Config
struct RebornConfig {
// General
struct {
std::string version;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119990
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is this reduced from a program or were you trying things and ran into this
issue?
The reason why I ask is that GCC knows that GCC is called only once so it
inlines less into it if not inside a loop.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #14)
> OK, I think it might be a GC issue.
>
> It's very sensitive to small changes (clang-format, for example, makes it
> work). The preprocessed version also works. Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119990
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
s/int main/void f/ and the warning goes away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||GC
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
OK,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119990
Bug ID: 119990
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized -O3 false positive when using
std::string in structure and designated initalizer
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
--- Comment #23 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d23d35d3b76aa2ca124e580908f56f4b249cfe3a
commit r14-11697-gd23d35d3b76aa2ca124e580908f56f4b249cfe3a
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118083
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d03c58584da3c440cc9103d6a69f6c36f16f6e97
commit r14-11696-gd03c58584da3c440cc9103d6a69f6c36f16f6e97
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118083
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4f5243c6f5c387d9c96783d36fa6eb103a8d9ee
commit r14-11695-gd4f5243c6f5c387d9c96783d36fa6eb103a8d9ee
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119807
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3cb17bed3a61a2d45ff6142bbabc633a334dc2f
commit r14-11694-gd3cb17bed3a61a2d45ff6142bbabc633a334dc2f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112288
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3cb17bed3a61a2d45ff6142bbabc633a334dc2f
commit r14-11694-gd3cb17bed3a61a2d45ff6142bbabc633a334dc2f
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115408
gagan sidhu (broly) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119989
Bug ID: 119989
Summary: [AVR] Incorrect code generation with __memx pointers
when optimization is enabled (-O1 and above) on AVR
(ATmega328P)
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #23 from Zeb Figura ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #22)
> (In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #0)
> > Minimal example:
> >
> > typedef int myint[4] __attribute__((aligned(16)));
> >
> > extern void g(void *);
> >
> > void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
We need to make sure that incoming argument isn't promoted by
TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> sh4eb is showing similar failures
Is this the same issue:
static machine_mode
sh_promote_function_mode (const_tree type, machine_mode mode,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97113
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97111
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97110
Bug 97110 depends on bug 109366, which changed state.
Bug 109366 Summary: No -Wanalyzer-null-dereference for unique_ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109366
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109366
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111536
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97110
Bug 97110 depends on bug 111536, which changed state.
Bug 111536 Summary: -fanalyzer false positive with NRVO return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111536
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61231&action=edit
A patch
Please try this. I suspect that all targets using
default_promote_function_mode_always_promote are broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119988
Bug ID: 119988
Summary: Takes 2 reassociation pass to optimize range if
sometimes
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119979
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|iq2000 mcore|iq2000 mcore sh4eb
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80006
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail, xfail
--- Comment #7 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/119977/gimple-match.tar.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> Current failures with updated patch:
> +XPASS: gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c missing range info for short (test for
> warnings, line 51)
> +XPASS: gcc.dg/attr-all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61230
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61230&action=edit
build.log (after, r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61222|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119987
Bug ID: 119987
Summary: RFE: promote -fms-extensions for structures to
-std=gnu*
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
Current failures with updated patch:
+XPASS: gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c missing range info for short (test for
warnings, line 51)
+XPASS: gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c missing range info for signed char (test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97111
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a39e0ca0652ff84a31efa3c7d4c7a78d9bb95ae
commit r16-264-g7a39e0ca0652ff84a31efa3c7d4c7a78d9bb95ae
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119697
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a39e0ca0652ff84a31efa3c7d4c7a78d9bb95ae
commit r16-264-g7a39e0ca0652ff84a31efa3c7d4c7a78d9bb95ae
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111536
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1922f0252b3b09016df76bd5b10119206935e37
commit r16-266-ga1922f0252b3b09016df76bd5b10119206935e37
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109366
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a63dc8c65d469e1d7ac3d764179653bf0ec843f
commit r16-265-g2a63dc8c65d469e1d7ac3d764179653bf0ec843f
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85752
H. Peter Anvin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
Bug ID: 119986
Summary: Complex array part references are being passed
incorrectly to a procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
--- Comment #8 from saul.x.robinson at durham dot ac.uk ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to saul.x.robinson from comment #6)
> >
> > Oh.
> > Just encase it exist, is there a setting to make GCC assume overflows are
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to saul.x.robinson from comment #6)
>
> Oh.
> Just encase it exist, is there a setting to make GCC assume overflows are
> possible as I have found them to be useful quite often?
I mentioned alrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
--- Comment #6 from saul.x.robinson at durham dot ac.uk ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to saul.x.robinson from comment #4)
> > I know the integer overflows.
> > Does that sort of undefined behavior cause issues with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to saul.x.robinson from comment #4)
> I know the integer overflows.
> Does that sort of undefined behavior cause issues with the final machine
> code the compiler generates?
Yes. In this case if y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119985
Bug ID: 119985
Summary: TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_RETURN is still referenced in
target.def
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Please also read https://blog.regehr.org/archives/213 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -fsanitize=undefined does catch this:
/app/example.c:5:4: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 2139095040 +
1065353216 cannot be represented in type 'int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
--- Comment #4 from saul.x.robinson at durham dot ac.uk ---
(In reply to saul.x.robinson from comment #0)
> I have confirmed is bug occurs on 15.1.0 and 12.2.0. Don't know how to find
> more recent versions.
> Those GCC versions were compiling fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95801
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a467c2ceaa680a3b54a7bc20e6bb6c3f8a47004
commit r16-245-g9a467c2ceaa680a3b54a7bc20e6bb6c3f8a47004
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119712
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce489c870bf28e5e3ffd5fe6730727d1ea942b3f
commit r16-244-gce489c870bf28e5e3ffd5fe6730727d1ea942b3f
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119984
Bug ID: 119984
Summary: Incorrect code with -O2 and above
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82991
Bug 82991 depends on bug 67797, which changed state.
Bug 67797 Summary: builtin functions should be able to know when their first
argument is returned for tail calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08af16bfea689d095f0d41ccfeed204178e6f8b6
commit r16-243-g08af16bfea689d095f0d41ccfeed204178e6f8b6
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119983
Bug ID: 119983
Summary: Member function in unnamed type causes internal
compiler error in module.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
Hi there,
I wanted to follow up and see if you had a chance to consider the
article I mentioned. I believe it could be a great addition to your
site, offering valuable insights for your readers. Let me know if
you're interested!
Best,
Katie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982
Bug ID: 119982
Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr109362.c
scan-assembler \tmovq\t8\\(%rdi\\), %r by
r16-190-g6901d56fea2132
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116954
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e91580d64932dffa87831ef403f5fb7a41b6f12
commit r14-11692-g1e91580d64932dffa87831ef403f5fb7a41b6f12
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113835
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8dce1aa0579ab86a626e24c0af29455f30305595
commit r14-11691-g8dce1aa0579ab86a626e24c0af29455f30305595
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||14.2.1, 15.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61227&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119317
Chris Bazley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Chris.Bazley at arm dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
No, that gives the same result (no diff). I made a mistake somewhere. I'll take
a break and try again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112934
--- Comment #5 from Barnabás Pőcze ---
If I'm not mistaken, GCC 15.1 has been released, so I am wondering if the patch
could now be merged?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119981
Bug ID: 119981
Summary: Regression with lambda as auto template param
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> OK, if I run:
> ```
> /home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/xg++
> [...]
> gimple-match-6-stage2.ii -o b -fchecking=1
> ```
This should say -o a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Ugh, let me just paste the right ones, sorry.
OK, if I run:
```
/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/xg++
-B/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/
-B/home/sam/prefix/gcc-after/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119980
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
OK, if I run:
```
/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/xg++
-B/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/
-B/home/sam/prefix/gcc-after/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostdinc++
-B/home/sam/build/gcc-after/stage2-x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119970
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
