https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120249
Federico Kircheis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |16.0
--- Comment #1 from Federico K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120250
Bug ID: 120250
Summary: ICE during RTL pass: dwarf2, in create_trace_edges, at
dwarf2cfi.cc:2686
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rundongyang22 at m dot
fudan.edu.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120248
Bug ID: 120248
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault at gcc/toplev.cc:314
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #16 from Robert Dubner ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> (In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #9)
> > Whether or not this will fix any other problems, I don't know. I do know
> > that valgrind was reporting uniniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #15 from Robert Dubner ---
Oh. Well, that's a comedown.
I am compiling GCC-16 on an Ubuntu 22.04 LTS system, with the Ubuntu
distribution version of GCC-11. When I build GCC-6 and run "make check-cobol"
I am getting, as of today,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #13)
> But if other testcases are failing, that becomes less attractive. Let me
> know.
>
All in all, I see:
cobol.dg/group1/declarative_1.cob
cobol.dg/group2/88_leve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120247
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120247
Bug ID: 120247
Summary: __builtin_assoc_barrier and binding to a reference
type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #13 from Robert Dubner ---
Thanks. Sadly, that didn't tell me anything useful.
The front-end code that's failing is slated to be completely eliminated when
Jim gets a chance to work on it, probably in the next couple of weeks.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118869
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
int oh[1];
int *cm() { return __builtin_assoc_barrier(oh); }
```
The question is does array decays to pointers types before or after
assoc_barrier?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120246
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note ICE (especially ones which require --enable-checking=yes) after errors are
not normally backported as they don't show up to users. In this case it was
fixed in GCC 14 and the user of a released GCC neve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rundongyang22 at m dot
fudan.edu.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118868
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61412&action=edit
Patch which I am testing for this
This patch just fixes pointer types.
The others will be fixed seperately bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118868
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
void *f(void *a) { return __builtin_assoc_barrier(a); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116792
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4ccad8faf5266248993f7896b000ccf871ded30
commit r16-579-ge4ccad8faf5266248993f7896b000ccf871ded30
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118868
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61411
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61411&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120246
Bug ID: 120246
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class type, have exceptional
(error_mark) in fold_const_call_1, at
fold-const-call.cc:1569
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111415
stephematician changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stephematician.acct@proton.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120245
--- Comment #1 from Vineet Gupta ---
Or maybe instead of tracking the backup reg, track the FRM itself.
It seems to be a hard reg so live tracking is easier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120245
Bug ID: 120245
Summary: RISC-V: Avoid FRM read/writes in non FRM related code
paths
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120244
Bug ID: 120244
Summary: cobol.dg/cgroup2: more Valgrind issues in tests
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61409
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61409&action=edit
declarative_1.cob show output
(In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #11)
```
(gdb) r
Starting program: /usr/li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.4.1, 13.3.1, 14.2.1
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120142
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21231
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> cmov optab is unused (PR120230).
> Which means this is fixed for GCC 4.5.0.
> I am testing a patch to remove cmov optab right now too.
cmov was removed in r16-57
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118411
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41366ba6f6358fe6a3e9f631e513dffe2ea9db3a
commit r12-11095-g41366ba6f6358fe6a3e9f631e513dffe2ea9db3a
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118411
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d961c62a7bc1521c977fe48d4cbd940d7ccb8ea
commit r13-9651-g1d961c62a7bc1521c977fe48d4cbd940d7ccb8ea
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #11 from Robert Dubner ---
I am not surprised. When I first read about it a couple of days ago, it looked
to me like two separate problems.
Primus: We talked casually about my working with you to duplicate the working
environment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118411
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:102e10f0221150218e7ee61b47e42b50653052ae
commit r14-11766-g102e10f0221150218e7ee61b47e42b50653052ae
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120243
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
A similar example but with an initially suspended coroutine terminates at -O2
or highter.
#include
struct coro {
struct promise_type {
promise_type() = default;
std::suspend_always initial_susp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120243
Bug ID: 120243
Summary: [15/16 Regression] Exception rethrown from coroutine
promise type unhandled_exception not caught under -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120230
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:213c64962d24fa8a4b2f3d7a9c5508f9daed9fa2
commit r16-572-g213c64962d24fa8a4b2f3d7a9c5508f9daed9fa2
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120161
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=120230
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110812
--- Comment #9 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
Which means we just need something like this?
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
index 38f3ae7cd84..5ed6c54ff1c 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120231
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f375445ef09d5c97d5bcc0fcb6069612217963e
commit r16-571-g6f375445ef09d5c97d5bcc0fcb6069612217963e
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a0e88c0c329ee69b13cdf2784c0c88edbca1f9e
commit r14-11765-g4a0e88c0c329ee69b13cdf2784c0c88edbca1f9e
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110812
Palmer Dabbelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120235
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120187
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120187
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:506cb05479ee04c724eb0ebde07d2e9062efb264
commit r15-9666-g506cb05479ee04c724eb0ebde07d2e9062efb264
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120198
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d06a800159df2057d8d2fc028a3a90af937d606d
commit r15-9665-gd06a800159df2057d8d2fc028a3a90af937d606d
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120012
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9e3181516f1c0786f81b9c813581bf986a6300a
commit r15-9664-gc9e3181516f1c0786f81b9c813581bf986a6300a
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #8)
> (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #5)
> > commit r16-480-g6ce73ad4370c143a7d1e6a13b1d353db5884213f
>
> > * gfortran.dg/do_concurre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120012
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4b4dfbd22e06877052bd4cc4b191d9d138155cf
commit r16-570-gb4b4dfbd22e06877052bd4cc4b191d9d138155cf
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
--- Comment #20 from Tobias Burnus ---
And for the condition, I think the proper way is to write:
#if MPFR_VERSION >= MPFR_VERSION_NUM(4,2,0)
... = mpfr_sinpi ( ... )
#else
fallback
#endif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
I don't think I've ever done a LRA build with selftests enabled.
Hi,
We provide custom packaging boxes and labels. We make boxes in different
materials and styles such as Vape Boxe, Cigarette Boxes, Cartridge Boxes,
Cardboard boxes, Rigid Boxes and Mailer boxes, etc.
Our benefits include quick turnaround time, free shipping and design
support. Just send over y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120231
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, I'd definitely appreciate blank handlers for those, which I can gradually
try to implement. Working now on big-endian _BitInt, so it won't be
immediately, but will try to get to it before summer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120242
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Summary|[15/16 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120242
Bug ID: 120242
Summary: [15/16 regression] RISC-V: Miscompile at -O[23]
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120230
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-May/683366.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #11)
> My guess is that cmov_optab should probably be removed as unused.
I filed PR 120230 for that and submitted a patch for the removal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120231
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
We do not have cast operators between int and float. We are also missing some
dispatch code for them as we haven't actually used some of those patterns yet.
I am going to checked in a patch to trunk short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120240
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120213
--- Comment #9 from Raffaello Bertini ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8)
> I'm not sure I fully grok the example code, but FWIW the analyzer doesn't
> yet "know" about the behavior of strnlen and so conservatively assumes any
> poss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120069
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
In some graphs we are now better than before, mostly due to the inlining
change g:064cac730f88dc71c6da578f9ae5b8e092ab6cd4
which enables inlining on non-hot edges if callee speeds up enoug.
This improved imagi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120188
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ce4c801e8275fcf0336ae2fb548f6ebb3ca068b
commit r16-567-g9ce4c801e8275fcf0336ae2fb548f6ebb3ca068b
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I was also working on a patch as well and it occurred to me that we need the
logic to go like this with a helper function:
// helper function, possibly two arguments here for checking
bool checkthearg (ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119852
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51ffec744b513a71fe84373fb87a3c0125b7fffd
commit r14-11764-g51ffec744b513a71fe84373fb87a3c0125b7fffd
Author: Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110812
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
libgcrypt is the next victim.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120241
Bug ID: 120241
Summary: bpf: problem with preserve_access_index in "nested"
struct types
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120240
Bug ID: 120240
Summary: addcc/negcc/notcc vs cond_add/cond_neg/cond_one_cmpl
optabs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation, int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120069
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119900
--- Comment #8 from Filip Kastl ---
Looks fixed. Should we close this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120239
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh actually we already do the same, but only with -Wall:
foo.cc: In function ‘void f()’:
foo.cc:3:6: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘}’ token
3 | { 0 };
| ^~
| ;
foo.cc:3:5: warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120239
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We could probably still do better.
Clang says:
foo.cc:3:6: error: expected ';' after expression
3 | { 0 };
| ^
| ;
foo.cc:3:5: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120239
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120213
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
I'm not sure I fully grok the example code, but FWIW the analyzer doesn't yet
"know" about the behavior of strnlen and so conservatively assumes any possible
size_t value as the output. There are also limit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120213
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Reproducer on Compiler Explorer (with gcc trunk):
https://godbolt.org/z/darnMzMr3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116445
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120239
--- Comment #1 from Frank Heckenbach ---
Oops, submitted too early.
Of course, the program is wrong, but the message is confusing. Adding a '}'
won't really help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120188
--- Comment #5 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 61408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61408&action=edit
Proposed fix to documentation and testsuite additions to include documentation
example
The gm2.texi is fixed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120239
Bug ID: 120239
Summary: error: expected ';' before '}' token
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120123
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119714
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119427
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ff3b3122adfe0c479901da4fc28e367d89f185b
commit r15-9659-g0ff3b3122adfe0c479901da4fc28e367d89f185b
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b76b58a5875d519f95a5af661fb64e42a42ed8e
commit r15-9660-g0b76b58a5875d519f95a5af661fb64e42a42ed8e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119714
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b76b58a5875d519f95a5af661fb64e42a42ed8e
commit r15-9660-g0b76b58a5875d519f95a5af661fb64e42a42ed8e
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119645
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119692
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5f48e7872db30b8f174cb2c497868a358bf75d6
commit r16-566-gb5f48e7872db30b8f174cb2c497868a358bf75d6
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119645
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1321df5bc05663021313c17f4af54b950aa05d01
commit r16-563-g1321df5bc05663021313c17f4af54b950aa05d01
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120223
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Dumb mistake on my part. Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116445
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20c25919132b497c3a46a4bc4044f65b6459b99e
commit r16-562-g20c25919132b497c3a46a4bc4044f65b6459b99e
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91bc8169edd9038d78f38bd813287d72e6345c26
commit r16-559-g91bc8169edd9038d78f38bd813287d72e6345c26
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120238
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
You could at most argue that gimplification should not fold the read from l.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120238
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
This looks like a frontend issue to me,the CTOR {&e, 0} has 'e' without
TREE_ADDESSABLE set.
We used to paper over such FE issues during gimplification and wherenot, but
not so any longer.
Note that we _d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119714
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91bc8169edd9038d78f38bd813287d72e6345c26
commit r16-559-g91bc8169edd9038d78f38bd813287d72e6345c26
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120236
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
As we want to be more and more flow-sensitive with PTA the solution is likely
to drop PTA info along range info :/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120238
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
[forwarded from https://bugs.debian.org/1104902]
seen with the gcc-15 branch 20250504 and trunk 20250512:
$ cat bug.cc
int f ()
{ extern const int e;
static const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120236
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120237
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
