https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93520
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93522
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93521
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93056
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hehaochen at hotmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93520
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93356
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cstratak at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93511
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93516
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93516
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93509
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93512
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Please do not introduce ROTATE_COUNT_TRUNCATED. RTL should always be
well-defined and semantics _not_ depend on the recognized instruction (see all
the hassle with SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED and targets having s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #29)
> I think this last patch above fixes the last adjustment needed. I could be
> wrong I suppose. Is this ready to close?
Jerry, thanks for the good work so far!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93512
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Segher said he thinks that ROTATE/ROTATERT on all targets will do the
truncation, so it is just a matter of proving that. Sure, one can add
explictly patterns like
(define_insn "rotl3_cntmask"
[(set (matc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Henlich ---
Jerry, I reviewed some of the code in write_float.def:
478 /* Calculate the format of the exponent field. */
479 if (expchar && !(dtp->u.p.g0_no_blanks && e == 0))
480 {
481 edigits = 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93056
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93523
Bug ID: 93523
Summary: Fails to cross compile from x86_64 to aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93523
--- Comment #1 from noel.kuntze at thermi dot consulting ---
Created attachment 47749
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47749&action=edit
config.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93056
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
-O3 is worse:
.p2align 3,,7
.L2:
add x5, x0, x3, sxtw 2
ldr w6, [x0, w3, sxtw 2]
add w4, w3, 1
sub w7, w3, #1
ldr w5, [x5, -4]
lsl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93523
--- Comment #3 from noel.kuntze at thermi dot consulting ---
Created attachment 47750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47750&action=edit
config log for pass 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93523
--- Comment #4 from noel.kuntze at thermi dot consulting ---
Thank you for the quick response. I attached it. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93523
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|aarch64-alpine-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93516
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92319
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92319
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93440
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so I can compile the testcase now but I fail to see the error. We're
doing pointer difference compares and those should work out fine?
We're also doig many checks but you probably refer to the very fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed already by r10-6344-g2595f25cdaf4f16d04a1078a487b2ecc126cae29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524
Bug ID: 93524
Summary: [ISO C Binding][F2018] CFI_allocate – elem_size
mishandled + sm wrongly set?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92319
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47751&action=edit
gcc10-pr92319.patch
Untested patch that implements just this part of the paper (but not e.g. the
padding preser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93516
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> That bisection looks wrong, my bisection says it started with
> r10-6322-g6693911f069b1ada7c04aa1d00c3653ba694958a
You are right, I did it manually and then forgo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 08:41:29AM +, markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
>
> markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks for the report, confirmed. Simpler testcase:
#include
int
main ()
{
int i;
int a = 42;
#pragma omp target teams distribute parallel for defaultmap(tofrom: scalar)
for (i = 0; i < 64; ++i)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93450
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:45eb3e4944ba93b1d4e9070c703068cfa7aaace4
commit r10-6368-g45eb3e4944ba93b1d4e9070c703068cfa7aaace4
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Just to summarize discussions we had. I think we need to think through setup
where there are different build, train and pgo-buid machines and the
directories are not known in advance.
There -ffile-prefix-map
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually passing phony / is not needed. We could do right thing with
gcc foo.c -o /ibb1/foo.o -fprofile-prefix-map==
-fprofile-generate
or
gcc foo.c -o /ibb1/foo.o -fprofile-strip-prefix=
-fprofile-generate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> Just to summarize discussions we had. I think we need to think through
> setup where there are different build, train and pgo-buid machines and the
> directories ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> Actually passing phony / is not needed. We could do right thing with
>
> gcc foo.c -o /ibb1/foo.o -fprofile-prefix-map==
> -fprofile-generate
>
> or
>
> gcc foo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #27 from Martin Liška ---
I've just made an experiment with the dynamic allocation of TOPN profile counts
(similarly to what clang does).
There's a GCC branch that does instrumentation and profiling (including
merging):
https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92924
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
Stats one more time (should not wrap around):
== Stats for /tmp/prev-gcc ==
stats for indirect_call:
Total: 9218, total freq: 5945116271, covered freq: 3610877419 (60.74%)
Histogram:
0 tracked: 6257 (6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
do you have example how the relative paths can be used?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #27)
> We've hit what seems like almost the exact same issue on gcc 8.3.0 with this
> minimized testcase:
>
> void fg(int *);
> int get_response(int a)
> {
> int b;
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
--- Comment #5 from Justin LaPolla ---
I think this may be a duplicate of PR 86669. Thanks for finding it.
> Fixed on trunk by r266893 for PR 86669, which doesn't seem related.
What makes you say it doesn't seem related?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93510
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If I get this right,
extern void abort (void);
extern int random ();
int
main ()
{
int a[1024];
for (int x = 0; x < 1024; x++)
a[x] = 1 + (random () & 1);
int d, h;
for (int x = 0; x < 1024; x +=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
> do you have example how the relative paths can be used?
We use them in GCC boostrap for instance ;) We copy .gcda files with:
{ find . -name '*.*da' | sed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e60b1e23626701939e8a2f0cf6fc1e48abdf867b
commit r10-6371-ge60b1e23626701939e8a2f0cf6fc1e48abdf867b
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92169
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93525
Bug ID: 93525
Summary: Left shift and arithmetic shift could be futher
simplified in simplify-rtx.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] wrong |[8/9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93401
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
This only work because the directory does not change from build time to train
time. The paths are not relative instead absolute path is put into every .o
file at compile time.
jan@skylake:~> gcc -fprofile-gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93462
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a97d9eae4543a995f895e6739530f55f5d039a7
commit r10-6372-g6a97d9eae4543a995f895e6739530f55f5d039a7
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #100 from Dzianis Kahanovich ---
Created attachment 47753
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47753&action=edit
additional aligning on demand <10.0
Finally (for me), if somebody think to patch by H.J. Lu is not enou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #101 from Dzianis Kahanovich ---
Created attachment 47754
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47754&action=edit
additional aligning on demand 10.0 (unsure)
This is same for gcc 10.0 and not fully verifyed.
It MUST w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92169
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r0-116587-g0fd0752e83525409addcdb904c67dc535bd5c1d1:
commit 0fd0752e83525409addcdb904c67dc535bd5c1d1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Thu May 3 12:19:02 2012 -0400
dwarf2out.c (modified_type_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> This is the fix, thought I recall it broke something.
That was constexpr-ex4.C:
constexpr-ex4.C:13:11: error: no matching function for call to ‘A::operator
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93526
Bug ID: 93526
Summary: x86-64: %c cannot be used in asm for "i" constraint
operand and arbitrary constant value
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90275
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 92388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92388
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93526
--- Comment #1 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
Bug 85344 may be related for the signedness aspect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93055
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Vlad, any thoughts on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #29 from Victor Stinner ---
Jakub Jelinek: "Fixed on the trunk."
Oh wow, that was quick! Thanks for the fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93526
--- Comment #3 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
Let me quote documentation then:
"Require a constant operand and print the constant expression with no
punctuation."
There's nothing said about valid value ranges or alike. To me as a user of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A brief, but maybe too brief look at the other bug.
If it's the same issue, I don't understand how it was fixed in GCC 8.2 when
r267702 wasn't committed until after the 8.2 release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
(fc4ea7a)
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ gcc10git --version
gcc10git (GCC) 10.0.1 20200131 (experimental)
configuration options:
$ ../gcc/configure --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c++
--program-suffix=10git
Build command:
$ make -j 12
maybe related to bug 79917
Compiler command
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93527
--- Comment #1 from Paco Arjonilla ---
Created attachment 47755
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47755&action=edit
Preprocessed source code
File is gzipped because its original size is 1055841 bytes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93527
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93527
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
zcat namidevel.pp.cc.gz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93440
--- Comment #6 from ikonomisma at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> OK, so I can compile the testcase now but I fail to see the error. We're
> doing pointer difference compares and those should work out fine?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93527
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91320
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sounds good Vlad. Real curious to see what, if any, heuristics work in
practice. We can obviously reevaluate this BZ once you've wrapped up on 91333.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93509
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
On the gcc-8 branch it was fixed by r261091 for PR 85873
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, to sum up, in #c9 we are (or want to do) in Fortran roughly what in C we
would do with:
void foo (double aa, double bb, void *c_aptr, void *c_bptr, double **aptr,
double **bptr, _Bool _aa, _Bool _bb, _Bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5910b14503dd82772dfeca5336a0176f9b1d260a
commit r10-6381-g5910b14503dd82772dfeca5336a0176f9b1d260a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The patch unfortunately regressed:
+FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/loop-5.c (internal compiler error)
+FAIL: c-c++-common/gomp/loop-5.c (test for excess errors)
which looks like previously broken code on the testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93528
Bug ID: 93528
Summary: Object copy not optimized out for most sizes in strict
aliasing memcpy pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529
Bug ID: 93529
Summary: Implement P1009R2, Array size deduction in
new-expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47756
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47756&action=edit
initial WIP
This implements the simplest form, but not the string literal case or
parenthesized init.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93438
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:455f58ec50465aed9d92dc31d68708a05e499388
commit r10-6382-g455f58ec50465aed9d92dc31d68708a05e499388
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93379
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1c807e887d43551bca0acc16a438d880cfaf7c9
commit r10-6383-gf1c807e887d43551bca0acc16a438d880cfaf7c9
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93438
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 03:46:04PM +, markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
>
> markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>>> Since I'm no longer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93379
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93530
Bug ID: 93530
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE on invalid alignas
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93530
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
