https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
Bug ID: 89673
Summary: [GCOV] A label followed with a blank(empty) statement
will be wrongly marked as executed in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89674
Bug ID: 89674
Summary: [GCOV] A label in if block is not used in reference or
goto label is wrongly marked as executed in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89664
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 12 07:56:23 2019
New Revision: 269604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89664
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89675
Bug ID: 89675
Summary: [GCOV] A complex statement in while (1) block is
wrongly marked as not-executed in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89670
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jörn Engel from comment #13)
> None of those examples convince me. If you or I know that a zero-argument
> is impossible, but the compiler doesn't know, wouldn't that still be UB?
> And if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89663
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 12 08:17:08 2019
New Revision: 269605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89663
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_int_round
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89663
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89666
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Is this a dup of PR 69693?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89664
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69693
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 89654 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89674
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89675
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Is this a dup of PR 69693?
Yes, indeed. The issue with too many moves remain, I'll open a new PR for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89676
Bug ID: 89676
Summary: Redundant moves for long long shift on 32bit x86
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 79924, which changed state.
Bug 79924 Summary: aarch64: untranslated diagnostics in aarch64_err_no_fpadvsimd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79924
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79924
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 42689, which changed state.
Bug 42689 Summary: bad formatting of specs diagnostics
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42689
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52726
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 12 10:07:25 2019
New Revision: 269607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/52726
* config/s390/s390.md (tabort): Use %wd in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 52726, which changed state.
Bug 52726 Summary: Composed error message will not get translated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52726
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89677
Bug ID: 89677
Summary: internal compiler error: in wide_int_to_tree_1, at
tree.c:1549
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89678
Bug ID: 89678
Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-truncation error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89677
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89646
--- Comment #2 from Ian Harvey ---
The spurious warning is issued regardless of whether warnings are requested or
not (i.e. it is reported with a command line of just `gfortran -c file.f90`).
The warning is issued even if -Wno-aliasing is explic
: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190312 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69693
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Your patch will just paper over the real issue in this particular testcase.
This can be illustrated with an example from PR89654:
--cut here--
unsigned long long
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89646
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The check has been introduced at revision r141931 and is now
/* We are told not to check dependencies.
We do it, however, and issue a warning in case we find
one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > Is this a dup of PR 69693?
>
> Yes, indeed. The issue with too many moves remain, I'll open a new PR for
> that.
I'll also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89680
Bug ID: 89680
Summary: Redundant moves with -march=skylake for long long
shift on 32bit x86
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89363
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 12 13:40:51 2019
New Revision: 269612
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269612&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/89363
PR fortran/89364
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89364
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Mar 12 13:40:51 2019
New Revision: 269612
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269612&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/89363
PR fortran/89364
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89680
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89681
Bug ID: 89681
Summary: Incorrect source positions on O1 for simple code case
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89681
--- Comment #1 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45950&action=edit
O1 expand pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89681
--- Comment #2 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45951
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45951&action=edit
O0 expand pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43673
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com wrote:
> Actually this was introduced by the initial patch
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00330.html committed in 2005.
> All
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89682
Bug ID: 89682
Summary: g++9 incorrectly disallows using private static method
as default arg to ctor of template type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
>
> I'm out of ideas suitable for GCC 9 (besides reverting the patch, reverting
> to bogus state).
Either that or some hack (e.g. artificially avoiding vectorizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89679
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89364
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89363
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89679
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The first thing which looks invalid to me is when fwprop1 adds a bogus
REG_EQUAL note:
(insn 17 6 19 2 (set (reg:SI 140)
(const_int -1 [0x])) "pr89679.c":16:3 494
{*movsi_internal1}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89683
Bug ID: 89683
Summary: Function-style cast inside alignas on struct does not
compile
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89664
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 12 16:15:47 2019
New Revision: 269618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89664
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89679
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87866
--- Comment #7 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Tue Mar 12 16:31:48 2019
New Revision: 269619
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269619&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use libiberty's lrealpath to avoid portability problems.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89679
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The other variant would be perhaps more in line with the PR70574 change where
we don't add REG_EQUAL notes with paradoxical subregs in it, by:
--- gcc/expmed.c.jj 2019-01-10 11:43:14.387377695 +0100
+++ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-12-22 00:00:00 |2019-3-12
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, emsr at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Also, the legendre functions should not be onstrained on the argument x
> either.
> They are just polynomials. The recursions are numer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87673
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Mar 12 17:22:28 2019
New Revision: 269624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-12 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/87673
* match.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89684
Bug ID: 89684
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in gsi_for_stmt, at
gimple-iterator.c:613
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89685
Bug ID: 89685
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type',
have 'expression' (compound_expr) in
diag_attr_exclusions, at attribs.c:396
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89679
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The other variant would be perhaps more in line with the PR70574 change
> where we don't add REG_EQUAL notes with paradoxical subregs in it.
Yes, that looks like the right thing to do to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89685
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #5 from DIL ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> (In reply to DIL from comment #2)
> > For GFORTRAN 6.4.0 and earlier, the relevant compiler bug has been fixed in
> > 78300.
>
> Are you saying that the exact same bug r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #6 from DIL ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4)
> (In reply to DIL from comment #2)
> > For GFORTRAN 6.4.0 and earlier, the relevant compiler bug has been fixed in
> > 78300.
>
> Are you saying that the exact same bug r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89678
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89678
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89686
Bug ID: 89686
Summary: Lambda pack capture with pack on both sides
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89670
--- Comment #15 from Jörn Engel ---
> int foo (int x) { return __builtin_ctz (x); }
>
> Without -mbmi, gcc emits:
> xorl%eax, %eax
> rep bsfl%edi, %eax
> ret
That example convinces me. Code would be broken w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89686
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89687
Bug ID: 89687
Summary: Empty pack expansion in `decltype` results in cryptic
compiler error (dump_expr)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
--- Comment #25 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Mar 12 18:37:31 2019
New Revision: 269625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR d/87824
* lib/gdc.exp (gdc_include_flags): Fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89686
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89688
Bug ID: 89688
Summary: -Wstringop-overflow confused by 2D array of char
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89685
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 45952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45952&action=edit
patch to prefer copy elision
This implements that, but I'm going to hold off a bit before committing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48957
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89686
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89684
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
Bug ID: 89689
Summary: [7/8 regression] false warning -Wstringop-overflow=
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||83819
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89668
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66695
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #9)
> Sorry if that maybe a stupid question but is it wise that close before the
> new release to start such a bigger coding?
Well, it turned out to be much less inva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84717
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89684
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that references_to_redirect contains ipa_ref_t and those
ipa_ref_t nodes live in the referring node->ref_list.references vector.
If there is more than one reference with ref->referring == node,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89684
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried:
--- gcc/multiple_target.c.jj2019-01-18 09:13:59.081781785 +0100
+++ gcc/multiple_target.c 2019-03-12 22:38:53.197662850 +0100
@@ -105,8 +105,24 @@ create_dispatcher_calls (struct cgraph_n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88957
--- Comment #1 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Tue Mar 12 23:10:49 2019
New Revision: 269627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
d/dmd: Merge upstream dmd 19b1454b5
Backports fixes for man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Mar 12 23:13:36 2019
New Revision: 269628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89461
* testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp: Lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88957
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89690
Bug ID: 89690
Summary: ICE on a MEM_REF in trivial gimple
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89691
Bug ID: 89691
Summary: ICE on a MEM_REF plus negative offset in gimple
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
