https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc078cf85295ec5d0a63a16afbd045efac0d455e
commit r13-1855-gcc078cf85295ec5d0a63a16afbd045efac0d455e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
--- Comment #3 from liftdat at protonmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The one inside check_offload_target_name (in gcc.cc) will always have at
> least one entry in candidates.
>
> The one inside cmdline_handle_error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose we could just put a gcc_assert in there to make that assumption
explicit and give an ICE in checked builds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The one inside check_offload_target_name (in gcc.cc) will always have at least
one entry in candidates.
The one inside cmdline_handle_error (in opts-common.cc) could in theory be
called with no elements for
