https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I'm going to analyze it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> No, this would be definitely wrong.
Agreed.
> If the original code does not make you happy, do you think sth. along
>
> #define SZ (SZU64 * (sizeof (uint64_t) / siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[11 Regression] "ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70940
--- Comment #12 from Rimvydas (RJ) ---
Missing #include in testsuite gives
/z/gg/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/memory_resource/new_delete_resource.cc:
In function 'bool aligned(void*)':
/z/gg/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/memory_res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97588
Bug ID: 97588
Summary: Overzealous SRA of boolean bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
So e.g. addr2line is miscompiled:
$ as --32 --compress-debug-sections -o compress.o
/tmp/binutils-gdb/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/dw2-compress-2.s
The .s file is part of the test-suite.
$ ./addr2line 0x0 0x10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Thanks for reporting this.
The expansion of assignments to misaligned ssa names
does not handle the case of misaligned stores, which
would result in incorrect code without the assertion.
I have an untested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
One can trigger it only with one debug counter value:
-fdbg-cnt=ipa_mod_ref:869-869 (and multiple LTRANS partitions).
The only changed function is in:
comp_unit_maybe_decode_line_info (struct comp_unit * unit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Points to the following statements:
../bfd/../../bfd/dwarf2.c:2321:13
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=bfd/dwarf2.c;h=977bf43a6a181d97fa3ae71329478f9f263b090f;hb=HEAD#l2321
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
So the _bfd_safe_read_leb128.constprop removes the first unused argument:
bfd_vma
_bfd_safe_read_leb128 (bfd *abfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
bfd_byte *data,
unsigned int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
>
> --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> Thanks for reporting this.
>
> The
> So the _bfd_safe_read_leb128.constprop removes the first unused argument:
>
...
>
> But the analysis is bogus:
>
> ipa-modref: call to _bfd_safe_read_leb128.constprop/17919 does not clobber
> ref:
> bytes_read alias sets: 7->7
>
> The &bytes_read is always modified in the function (if it's n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> So the _bfd_safe_read_leb128.constprop removes the first unused argument:
>
...
>
> But the analysis is bogus:
>
> ipa-modref: call to _bfd_safe_read_leb128.constprop/17919 does not clobber
> ref:
> bytes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87952
Giuseppe D'Angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dangelog at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> There is code in modref-transform that is supposed to update the
> summary. It produces debug output about it, but to be honest I am not
> sure where it will land since we now materialize lazily. Can you do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It still fails for me with g:2118438f49f0c193abe3fa3def350a8129045746
> Commit Date: Mon Oct 26 19:05:53 2020 +0100
The PowerPC64 issue is different, let me have a quick look at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14e19b82c1e67ead60c3095ac23347317298904b
commit r11-4423-g14e19b82c1e67ead60c3095ac23347317298904b
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97461
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #4 from jiawei ---
I had did some tests with this problem and find:
foo.c
#include
extern volatile bool active;
int foo(void)
{
if (!active) {
return 42;
} else {
return -42;
}
}
code generated in foo.s
foo:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97567
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #3)
> The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48722d158cbf692c24025e345ec570f66aa5
>
> commit r11-4393-g48722d158cbf692c24025e345
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
The following is a testcase triggering the
/* FORNOW: outer loop induction with SLP not supported. */
if (STMT_SLP_TYPE (stmt_info))
return false;
test:
double image[40];
void
foo (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97589
Bug ID: 97589
Summary: Segementation fault when allocating coarrays.
Product: gcc
Version: coarray_native
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
Honza
Hi,
this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
Honza
2020-10-27 Jan Hubicka
* ipa-modref.c (modref_summaries_lto::duplicate): Check that no clones
happens after modref.
(modref_transform): Rename to ...
(update_signature): ... this one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
This builds for me on powerpc64-linux, so I gather it's on powerpc64le-linux?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #14 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Builds fine for me on powerpc64 LE and BE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97590
Bug ID: 97590
Summary: new test case g++.dg/pr97560.C compilation errors
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97590
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
commit r11-4430-g31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97560
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
commit r11-4430-g31ec7242e1ff1e8da376ec9ffef10b07ac562881
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97205
--- Comment #4 from SRINATH PARVATHANENI ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #2)
> Thanks for reporting this.
>
> The expansion of assignments to misaligned ssa names
> does not handle the case of misaligned stores, which
> would result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70940
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Should be fixed at g:01079b6a9236bd467b445fafaff2659840789a85
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97514
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea0ae4e77a89d4a0492dcbbc13e9cbc19bcc2361
commit r11-4433-gea0ae4e77a89d4a0492dcbbc13e9cbc19bcc2361
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70940
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. if that failure only appeared recently it would be more useful to mail the
libstdc++ list than to add a comment to an old bug that hasn't been touched in
years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrea_iob at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:16ad9ae85bb5b9acf80f9d1cf2be5a989ef7ba49
commit r11-4437-g16ad9ae85bb5b9acf80f9d1cf2be5a989ef7ba49
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tonvandenheuvel at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83035
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70099
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
Bug ID: 97591
Summary: Segmentation fault by non-type template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Meremyanin ---
g++-10 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/Cellar/gcc/10.2.0/bin/g++-10
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/Cellar/gcc/10.2.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin19/10.2.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Meremyanin ---
Program source:
// /usr/local/Cellar/gcc/10.2.0/bin/g++-10 -std=c++20 type-level-routes.cpp
#include
#include
// FixedString from
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/bhxx49/c20_string_literals_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||v.stiff at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97592
Bug ID: 97592
Summary: Incorrectly set pointer remapping with array pointer
argument to CONTIGUOUS dummy
Product: gcc
Version: og10 (devel/omp/gcc-10)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97567
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 49448
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49448&action=edit
Adjust test case for 32 bit
change the testcase type to long long to avoid issues on 32 bit targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0b09c1296d5334d1d264ba4d39ca932f9572330
commit r11-4441-gc0b09c1296d5334d1d264ba4d39ca932f9572330
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92942, which changed state.
Bug 92942 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow for allocations with a negative
lower bound size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92942
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
Bug ID: 97593
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in gt_pch_nx, at
symbol-summary.h:290 since r11-4329-g67f3791f7d133214
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Hi,
> this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
Actually it won't help, since it updates only non-lto summary. I am
testing better patch, sorry for that.
Honza
> Hi,
> this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
Actually it won't help, since it updates only non-lto summary. I am
testing better patch, sorry for that.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
The original commit was sent here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01745.html
Git commit: g:315d42482cf3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, this is anoying: we can not store summary to PCH. I guess we want to
collect thunks to a vector and annotate them to callgraph at finalization time
:(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> Hmm, this is anoying: we can not store summary to PCH. I guess we want to
> collect thunks to a vector and annotate them to callgraph at finalization
> time :(
I se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #11)
> > Hi,
> > this is patch that moves updates to WPA time. Does it work for you?
> Actually it won't help, since it updates only non-lto summary. I am
> testing bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 49449
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49449&action=edit
preprocessed source, unreduced, gzipped
Here's another example that produces this kind of warning, this time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
Bug ID: 97594
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr97461.c execution
failure
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Yes, I noticed that right now :) Please attach me the patch here.
Sorry for bogus patch. This one has chance to work.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 49451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49451&action=edit
Build log
It's actually a partial cross compiler (-m32), please take a look at the build
log.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> Created attachment 49450 [details]
> fix
>
> > Yes, I noticed that right now :) Please attach me the patch here.
> Sorry for bogus patch. This one has chance to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
>
> --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > Created attachment 49450 [details]
> > fix
> >
> > > Yes, I no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97593
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I see.
> Can you please take care of it?
I will - as a natural punishment for cleaning this up :))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Sidwell ---
ah, the logic to squirrel away lookups on a magic attribute list, records that
nothing is found. But we don't preserve that negative lookup when injecting
these lookups into the parameter binding. So we'l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97591
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Meremyanin ---
Maybe but in the #95291 crash occurs when access member, and here when
operator() is called. So probably both issues have a single cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|new test case |[11 Regression] new test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
Bug ID: 97595
Summary: [11 Regression] warning: writing 1 byte into a region
of size 0 [-Wstringop-overflow=]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
#include
template void std::basic_iostream::swap(basic_iostream&);
The preprocessed code is no smaller, but this should only generate code for the
problematic function, not the entire class and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97596
Bug ID: 97596
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at
tree.c:1535
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 49452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49452&action=edit
preprocessed source, unreduced, gzipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
Yes, the volatile is the problem. We need to disable some optimizations like
the combiner to avoid breaking the semantics of volatile. However, if you try
looking at other ports, like arm, you can see that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe90c504416e6423c6a56f37a9265deabdb03de9
commit r11-4445-gfe90c504416e6423c6a56f37a9265deabdb03de9
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Tue O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97594
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Mine, I see a strange error:
>
> $ Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
> 0x3fffb7ceddbc in __GI__IO_link_in () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> Missing separate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Bug ID: 97597
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in build_over_call, at
cp/call.c:9034
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97597
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97596
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-27
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97579
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> So we have used_vec_cond_exprs == 1 and a V16SI eq/ne compare with a
> vector(16) HImode result. We fall into
>
> gcc_assert (known_eq (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97598
Bug ID: 97598
Summary: -Wself-init alone fails to warn of a pointless
assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f801e0b6cc9f67c9a8983127e23161f6025c5b6
commit r11-4453-g0f801e0b6cc9f67c9a8983127e23161f6025c5b6
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97599
Bug ID: 97599
Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] missing unspecified_parameters
DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97535
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] On |[9/10 Regression] On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97457
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It's actually a partial cross compiler (-m32), please take a look at the
> build log.
What's this beast exactly? I'm afraid the build log is useless here, it would
be better to post the configure line an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97586
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97600
Bug ID: 97600
Summary: [ranges] result of static assertion depends on
unrelated statement
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
