https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60437
--- Comment #4 from Foo Bar ---
Seems like I found same issue on gcc 9.1.1 Both MSVC 2019 and clang 9 can
compile this source without any error.
#include
#include
class Abc {
public:
Abc(std::initializer_list il = {}) : vec(il) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #18)
> The setjmp ICE seen by David and Iain should be fixed by
> r10-6305-g5aebfb71763c7c8d0bb96adcd0a5f94de96a2a13
>
> As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93491
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Const functions by definition dont trap or throw. So adding const to a
function that traps makes the testcase undefined.
Do you have a testcase were gcc does this optimize without the user adding
const and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93293
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01071.html
for the record, it happens to be that I have the same version of dot on my
older systems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91535
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 91535, which changed state.
Bug 91535 Summary: missing warning on strchr reading from an empty constant
array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91535
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91462
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0, 7.3.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||14441
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623
David Seifert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
--- Comment #3 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
This seems to show the issue: https://godbolt.org/z/-VRgtF
class Class1 {
public:
auto member() -> int&
#ifdef INLINE
{
return member_;
}
#else
;
#endif
private:
int member_;
};
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 91315, which changed state.
Bug 91315 Summary: missing strlen lower bound of a string known to be at least
N characters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91315
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
--- Comment #7 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Can we close this issue now?
as far as *-musl* is concerned the bug is fixed,
but e.g. now android uses elf tls too, i'm not
sure what happens there.
i'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91754
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90977
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see how the member function is any different from the following
function:
int &f(Class1 *a)
{
return a->member_;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
>With "INLINE" defined there is no warning.
inline functions are not warned about in general.
E.g.
inline int &f(Class1 *a)
{
return a->member_;
}
Also does not warn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
--- Comment #6 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
Yes,
--
struct Class1 {
int member_;
};
int &f(Class1 *a) { return a->member_; }
--
also generates the warning.
This is a bug, right? I'm basing this issue on
htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
--- Comment #7 from Cristian Morales Vega ---
Oh, it isn't a bug because it's returning a reference and even if the value of
member_ changes the reference (i.e. pointer) will always be the same?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93490
Cristian Morales Vega changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91848
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91938
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #3 from Svante Signell ---
ping!
These patches are very minor. What takes so long time? They were reported for
gcc-10, I did not find any entry for gcc-snapshot. Is gcc-10 released and
stable, compared to gcc-snapshot, i.e. current m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93495
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93495
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Vihrov ---
Yes, I confirmed the same issue for GNU ld and as, but didn't report that yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91629
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The observation about GCC_EXEC_PREFIX is correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91762
--- Comment #3 from Edoardo Apra ---
Created attachment 47732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47732&action=edit
Fortran code to test the OpenMP directive target exit data map(release) without
subroutines
Same test as previou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91762
--- Comment #4 from Edoardo Apra ---
@Jakub Thanks for the update.
Please keep in mind that this bug shows up only when OpenMP target directives
are used in subroutines are called by the main program.
I have just upload a new test that tests the
-
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.1 20200129 (experimental)
--
Again, this doesn't mean that gcc have to support such use cases.
> Do you have a testcase were gcc does this optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93491
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Const functions by definition dont trap or throw. So adding const to a
> function that traps makes the testcase undefined.
It's not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91489
--- Comment #3 from Paul Gofman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> @Paul: Can you please send the patch to GCC patches mailing list?
I think I found later that unfortunately this patch is not quite correct: the
stack was still wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92895
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a8f4febf75e9e44f847b65776d7f5f38940b3bf
commit r10-6328-g0a8f4febf75e9e44f847b65776d7f5f38940b3bf
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92895
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
Bug ID: 93496
Summary: Miscompile of range-for over braced-init-list in
constructor of class with virtual inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92171
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The constexpr evaluator doesn't see the "ref." part at all: VALUE is a static
data member, so build_class_member_access_expr produces "value":
(gdb) pt result
unit-size
align:8 warn_if_not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92171
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Not working on this now, needs to wait till GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93497
Bug ID: 93497
Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:7594
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
Bug ID: 93498
Summary: ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1844
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92003
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93499
Bug ID: 93499
Summary: ICE in gfc_zero_size_array, at fortran/arith.c:1686
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93500
Bug ID: 93500
Summary: ICE in gfc_numeric_ts, at fortran/expr.c:891
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92948
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:423284053ec51832bc4c823fb90dc41e632e37ac
commit r10-6329-g423284053ec51832bc4c823fb90dc41e632e37ac
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92948
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk so far, will backport to 9 sometime soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91754
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3b60da8e07030b1417067295f047b25015f21f2
commit r10-6330-ge3b60da8e07030b1417067295f047b25015f21f2
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #64 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2812a28418b72b24979805cfca1f140dda4963b7
commit r10-6331-g2812a28418b72b24979805cfca1f140dda4963b7
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0de349f108d963219bd59aa374a68c15355236be
commit r10-6332-g0de349f108d963219bd59aa374a68c15355236be
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Jan 29 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] false |[8/9 regression] false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> With a slightly modified testcase:
> unsigned short a;
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> register unsigned long long y = 0;
> int x = __builtin_add_overflow (y, (unsign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89565
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boris.rura at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90335
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
Bug ID: 93501
Summary: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/pr93473.f90 ICEs starting
with r10-6294
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91903
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Well, we should give you a better error message instead of an ICE. But the ABI
definition of the second argument as "const int" indicates it needs to be an
actual constant in the range 0..31.
So You're Doing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88092
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Benson ---
The patch from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-09/msg00044.html still
applies cleanly to trunk (with some line offsets) and regression tests cleanly
as of today. I'll attached a new version of the patch b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90788
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
Created attachment 47734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47734&action=edit
updated patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90788
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Benson ---
Ignore previous comment - wrong PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Benson ---
Created attachment 47735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47735&action=edit
updated patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson ---
This should be fixed by the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103#c7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88092
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:11ffae58473472766960b2f6c59108e331a9eba7
commit r10-6333-g11ffae58473472766960b2f6c59108e331a9eba7
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88092
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93313
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92650
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91243
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
I don't think we should use decltype's special rule in this context :)
Also, std::is_nothrow_invocable_v hard-errors in libstdc++, because the
noexcept operator doesn't have that rule...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92432
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel at ekpyron dot org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
A short test by Daniel Kirchner:
struct X { int s(); };
template using Y = void;
template static constexpr void t(X x) { Y v; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93502
Bug ID: 93502
Summary: std::regex_match uses stack space proportional to
input string
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93502
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is a dup of an existing bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Seems that the multi-target speculation fallout is now fixed and also indirect
call profiling works similarly as to gcc9 now if the reproducibility logic is
disabled.
I re-benchmarked Firefox. Reproducible m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93502
--- Comment #2 from Nadav Har'El ---
Maybe you mean it is a dup of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86164 ?
But I'm not sure. I honestly don't understand the conclusion there that ".*" is
implemented recursively. Why would such a simp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:165255c7a562e04e3be89eb1c87b4ac3c5248d77
commit r10-6334-g165255c7a562e04e3be89eb1c87b4ac3c5248d77
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
And thanks for the gcov-analysis improvemnets. It is quite handy tool now :)
and it is interesting to know where the many-target calls are. Clearly there is
not much to win on walk_tree, but I guess it all dep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93503
Bug ID: 93503
Summary: Duplicated warning on pure virtual implicit template
in C++2a
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |11.0
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90333
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
commit r10-6335-g245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60503
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
commit r10-6335-g245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
commit r10-6335-g245e40af4fab5b7cf40fb310591a879355775971
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93503
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
You've given me less than 48 hours before asking why this takes such a long
time. I am extremely busy. Please be patient. I will get to this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59da7f96ffc489f4aea649f12ac80c384bad736c
commit r10-6336-g59da7f96ffc489f4aea649f12ac80c384bad736c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93504
Bug ID: 93504
Summary: Missed reassociation with constants and not of that
constant with IORs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93504
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
OP can be ^ too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e3b6c052b6a0569aa8f89c50db1ac376c42e41e0
commit r10-6338-ge3b6c052b6a0569aa8f89c50db1ac376c42e41e0
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68f3759eff5ee498b52490213650b42b1ad89f16
commit r10-6339-g68f3759eff5ee498b52490213650b42b1ad89f16
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66af5a226acd0edfbafcbcac76ed268cee0612ed
commit r10-6340-g66af5a226acd0edfbafcbcac76ed268cee0612ed
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93468
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93504
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note this does not block bit-field lowering because store merging did
not optimize it this way either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d9679132e0e9b0108e78bf1bc8fdea6238649a3
commit r9-8190-g9d9679132e0e9b0108e78bf1bc8fdea6238649a3
Author: Jason Merrill
Dat
201 - 300 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
