https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120574
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 120573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120573
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120574
Bug ID: 120574
Summary: Inconsistent array size overflow behavior between -O0
and others optimizations: code compiles at -O1、-O2、O3,
but fails at -O0
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120531
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The enum type looks like it was not "laid out".
This fixes the ICE but I am not 100% sure if it is the correct fix:
```
[apinski@xeond2 gcc]$ git diff
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.cc b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
index 9a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120531
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120573
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120573
Bug ID: 120573
Summary: Inconsistent array size overflow behavior between -O0
and others optimizations: code compiles at
-O1、-O2、O3ad, but fails at -O0
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120572
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50ca15baa73a5687ff0d0207dc9313b3ae1d6e5c
commit r16-1275-g50ca15baa73a5687ff0d0207dc9313b3ae1d6e5c
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120572
Bug ID: 120572
Summary: -Wmusttail-local-addr/-Wno-maybe-musttail-local-addr
is incorrect in the index
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #27 from Greg Chandler ---
root@bigbang:/tmp# which as
/usr/bin/as
root@bigbang:/tmp# as -v
GNU assembler version 2.44 (alpha-linux-gnu) using BFD version version
2.44-slack151
^C
root@bigbang:/tmp# as 1.s
root@bigbang:/tmp# ls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #26 from Greg Chandler ---
root@bigbang:/tmp# /usr/libexec/gcc/alpha-linux-gnu/14.2.0/cc1 /tmp/1.c
__bswap_16 __bswap_32 __bswap_64 __uint16_identity __uint32_identity
__uint64_identity main
Analyzing compilation unit
Performing int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110459
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
s/TYPE_SIZE_UNIT/TYPE_SIZE/g in the patch :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110459
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Created attachment 61598 [details]
> includes the fix for libstdc++
+FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr107467 cp_lto_pr107467_0.o-cp_lto_pr107467_0.o link, -O2
-fno-strict-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #25 from Greg Chandler ---
ctrl-d at that read yielded this:
read(0, "", 8192) = 0
close(0)= 0
times({tms_utime=12 /* 0.012 s */, tms_stime=11 /* 0.011 s */, tms_cutime=0,
tms_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #24 from Greg Chandler ---
I took another look at the strack trace, comparing it to the cross-compiler on
the build system.
Build system:
newfstatat(AT_FDCWD,
"/opt/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/alpha-linux-gnu/14.2.0/include",
{st_mode=S_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #23 from Greg Chandler ---
Well, it was a no-go, so I rebuilt again with --enable-checking=all
root@bigbang:/tmp# cat /tmp/1.c
#include
#include
int main ()
{
}
root@bigbang:/tmp# gcc /tmp/1.c -wrapper gdb
GN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu ---
Please describe your suggestions in stores, not bytes. Please don't use
numbers like 256 bytes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #32)
> For non-simd asm you can do at most 8 bytes per one mov instruction.
>
> Stock gcc resorts to rep movsq for sizes bigger than 40 bytes. Telling it to
> not use rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #32 from Mateusz Guzik ---
For non-simd asm you can do at most 8 bytes per one mov instruction.
Stock gcc resorts to rep movsq for sizes bigger than 40 bytes. Telling it to
not use rep movsq results in loops of 4 movsq instructions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Initial analysis is that ext-dce is fine at least as far as the RTL is
concerned. Will need to look at combine next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113754
Stas Sergeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stsp at users dot
sourceforge.net
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61597|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I suspect the bisection landing on the inliner heuristic change is a bit of a
red herring. Forcing that first function to be static inline and I can see
this well back in the gcc15 cycle.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #30)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #29)
> > (In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #28)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #27)
> > > > (In reply to Mateusz Guz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-06
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110459
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Created attachment 61597 [details]
> New patch based on the review
>
> This version is in testing but it works and maybe it is better than before.
Causes an IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120533
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Cleanup first:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/686046.html
The actual patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/686047.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119633
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120533
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a patch to fix this in testing; should be able to post it this evening.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61589|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #30 from Mateusz Guzik ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #29)
> (In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #28)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #27)
> > > (In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #26)
> > > > 4 stores per loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #28)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #26)
> > > 4 stores per loop is best
> >
> > Do you have data to show it?
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119896
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from James K. Lowden ---
> We are waiting for cfarm access to appropriate machines, to reproduce.
Good. I just saw that Robert's account is already set up.
> If yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120328
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robert Dubner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37f5fdd008399c239e0689f2e864519505c78c7e
commit r16-1273-g37f5fdd008399c239e0689f2e864519505c78c7e
Author: Robert Dubner
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119695
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robert Dubner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:37f5fdd008399c239e0689f2e864519505c78c7e
commit r16-1273-g37f5fdd008399c239e0689f2e864519505c78c7e
Author: Robert Dubner
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119896
--- Comment #3 from James K. Lowden ---
We are waiting for cfarm access to appropriate machines, to reproduce.
If you are so inclined, feel free to post a gdb backtrace for one of the
assertions. Perhaps the old stare-at-the-code trick will e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120554
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120555
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d204f2a536f7253e4251aca7bc12af524800b4c
commit r16-1272-g8d204f2a536f7253e4251aca7bc12af524800b4c
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120571
--- Comment #2 from Ben Woodard ---
Yes a partial workaround could be something like:
gcc -g -fno-eliminate-unused-debug-types -include impl.h -xc /dev/null -c -o
FOO.o
which will emit the type and the variable but still doesn't give us the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120570
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Pavel M from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Since __ is the implementation space, we don't error out on purpose.
> Then why does "__int128 x;" lead to "warning: IS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120570
--- Comment #2 from Pavel M ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Since __ is the implementation space, we don't error out on purpose.
Then why does "__int128 x;" lead to "warning: ISO C does not support '__int128'
types [-Wpedantic]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #22 from Greg Chandler ---
Well, I guess the next thing I needed to do was chug my morning cup of cherry
coke to wake up... Since I was too tired to catch it last night, and clearly
not paying attention this morning. The linker err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #21 from Greg Chandler ---
As I typed out that last message, it dawned on me that libssp is the likely
cause of the stack protection stuff... (sigh)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120513
--- Comment #20 from Greg Chandler ---
After a marathon of table-flipping and much ado, I was able to get all the
dependcies I needed for gdb to work. So that was the good news..
The bad news is that with gdb I am still staring at this process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120571
Bug ID: 120571
Summary: emit DWARF type declarations for incomplete types in
headers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93226
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #5)
> On OG15, for both nvptx and GCN offloading, I see:
...
The code has in the module:
integer :: D(N)
!$acc declare device_resident(D)
The problem is that o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120555
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120570
Bug ID: 120570
Summary: -pedantic option may not direct GCC to print a warning
message if __attribute__ feature is used
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120569
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61596
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61596&action=edit
gcc16-pr120569.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120569
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120569
Bug ID: 120569
Summary: Valid C++14 (or C++11/C++98) incorrectly rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
--- Comment #28 from Mateusz Guzik ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #27)
> (In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #26)
> > 4 stores per loop is best
>
> Do you have data to show it?
I used to, but I'm out of this game.
However, this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118837
--- Comment #6 from Tom Tromey ---
I also looked through the LLVM DWARF writer.
In part it is a bit nicer because it does:
void DwarfUnit::addConstantValue(DIE &Die, bool Unsigned, uint64_t Val) {
// FIXME: This is a bit conservative/simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118837
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey ---
> If the 64-bit value is
> negative, we emit DW_FORM_sdata, otherwise we emit whatever is smallest
> representation of the positive value (DW_FORM_data{1,2,4,8}, could perhaps
> use DW_FORM_udata).
I think I d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120568
Bug ID: 120568
Summary: Small oversight in dwarf2out.cc:attr_checksum_ordered
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120567
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-06
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120432
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120432
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e75e42f315e1e8bb4befee8ed242bd241c182091
commit r15-9789-ge75e42f315e1e8bb4befee8ed242bd241c182091
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120432
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91ed3248ce26aaaee4d7471aa4edbc07b3f1a90e
commit r16-1259-g91ed3248ce26aaaee4d7471aa4edbc07b3f1a90e
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120530
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16c742e1079e838b920a1b215af17828da7c6365
commit r16-1254-g16c742e1079e838b920a1b215af17828da7c6365
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120530
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99832
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2025-06-05 6:53 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99832
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Done on trunk, but this seems worth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120567
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Many fortran tests also use libbacktrace. So these days I just have
site.exp: set board_info(arm-qemu,extra_ldflags) "--specs=sync-none.specs"
In my bare-metal test configuration. That's enough f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120523
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113239
--- Comment #16 from Dimitry Andric ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> This makes the compiler shut up:
Thank you, I can confirm that. I tried Ubuntu's g++-13 (Ubuntu
13.3.0-6ubuntu2~24.04) and g++-14 (Ubuntu 14.2.0-4ubuntu2~2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120515
--- Comment #2 from Peter Eisentraut ---
Yes, I did figure that out, and -nodefaultexport does work. But as you said,
it's not documented, and it's not clear whether it should be the burden of the
user to use it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61594
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61594&action=edit
gcc16-pr120434-3.patch
Part 3/3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61587|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120567
Bug ID: 120567
Summary: [16 Regression] std::stacktrace tests now fail on
arm-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120542
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16ab791531ec16fd4596a25efbe6b42e6c16171f
commit r16-1251-g16ab791531ec16fd4596a25efbe6b42e6c16171f
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119975
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> commit r16-1193-g2e334900f4ddcd804e3b324402544a572d306ab6
> Author: Robert Dubner
> Date: Thu Jun 5 10:53:02 2025 -0400
>
> cobol: Guard clock_gettime(). [PR119975]
>
> This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113239
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This makes the compiler shut up:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
@@ -605,6 +605,9 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
: _Base(__x.size()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 119960, which changed state.
Bug 119960 Summary: [15 Regression] vectorizer seems not to do as much any more
since r15-5863
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0
Last reconfirmed|2022-01-22 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118160
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120182
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44792a6c4253f9a5b322797ef73b9c347c223545
commit r15-9785-g44792a6c4253f9a5b322797ef73b9c347c223545
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120563
--- Comment #1 from Anonymous ---
(In reply to Anonymous from comment #0)
> *
> **
> The compiler produces an internal error during tree_class_check_failed when
> compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.1.1
Summary|[12/13/14/15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120341
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09884fa0f90da67915245622254cdfb947b87d37
commit r15-9786-g09884fa0f90da67915245622254cdfb947b87d37
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120565
Tomasz Kamiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
--- Comment #23 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7da2b6ddf3a8371b585595231cddcb1ad0942ea4
commit r15-9781-g7da2b6ddf3a8371b585595231cddcb1ad0942ea4
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118160
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63be00fe4cad2552edcda863087adcce0b2aa236
commit r13-9745-g63be00fe4cad2552edcda863087adcce0b2aa236
Author: Giuseppe D'An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d375ebd56c54dc8c242bed988f29094b7e3e94e
commit r15-9783-g4d375ebd56c54dc8c242bed988f29094b7e3e94e
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fb3d9066266ea30de62c395239bda4e992297a3
commit r15-9782-g8fb3d9066266ea30de62c395239bda4e992297a3
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100249
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63be00fe4cad2552edcda863087adcce0b2aa236
commit r13-9745-g63be00fe4cad2552edcda863087adcce0b2aa236
Author: Giuseppe D'A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120357
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cb0127dfd3d01d4549f3139b087d1a5966844ee
commit r15-9787-g8cb0127dfd3d01d4549f3139b087d1a5966844ee
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.1.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca8032d6177668ca7f2a6a2e612e126a97ba8c53
commit r15-9784-gca8032d6177668ca7f2a6a2e612e126a97ba8c53
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05ef04d644c1a460b3af266a7766001c93fe1a6a
commit r15-9780-g05ef04d644c1a460b3af266a7766001c93fe1a6a
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120565
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6dcba678030181527c6010551387917b8d734904
commit r16-1205-g6dcba678030181527c6010551387917b8d734904
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120566
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111077
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|13.5
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
