https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97885
Bug ID: 97885
Summary: overload resolution fails with the existence of both a
constrained and a non-constrained template
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97875
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[9/10/11 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to ncm from comment #12)
> As it is, your probability of failure in 9 and 10 is exactly 1.0.
I don't get this?
We speak a possibility that we break a stable release branch by a backport that
can s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97868
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97881
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
/home/marxin/bin/gcc
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20201118 (experimental) (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B.
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr32919.c
-mno-speculate-indirect-jumps -c --verbose
Reading specs from ./specs
COLLEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92535
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually, I did not wait long enough for ICF to finish dumping. Here is the
correct output. Still nice improvement for OBJ_TYPE_REF
8399 false returned: 'parameter type is not compatible' in
compatible_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97880
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-18
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
If there is a git branch or so, I could also test it on my system with our code
whether this works as expected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97862
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba009860aec4619f2424f5bdee812f14572dc3cc
commit r11-5121-gba009860aec4619f2424f5bdee812f14572dc3cc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So for example we'd like to vectorize with SLP when reassociation is permitted
(thus with -Ofast for example):
double a[1024], b[1024], c[1024];
void foo()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 256; ++i)
{
a[2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97886
Bug ID: 97886
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in
vect_slp_analyze_node_operations, at
tree-vect-slp.c:3528 since
r11-4428-g4a369d199bf2f34e037030b18d0da923e8a24997
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97886
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Or
double a[1024], b[1024], c[1024];
void foo()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 256; ++i)
{
a[2*i] = 1. - a[2*i] + b[2*i];
a[2*i+1] = 1 + a[2*i+1] - b[2*i+1];
}
}
which early folding breaks un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97885
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97885
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code from the godbolt link is:
#include
template
concept weak_same = std::same_as, U>;
enum struct A {
x
};
auto f(weak_same auto) {}
auto f(auto&&) {}
auto main()->int {
f(A::x);
}
The f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
Bug ID: 97887
Summary: Failure to optimize neg plus div to avoid using x87
floating point stack
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
version 11.0.0 20201118 (experimental) [master revision
b03be74bad0:b7ec4b4b7a1:4b81528241ca682025d92558ff6aeec91dafdca8] (GCC)
[526] %
[526] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[527] %
[527] % gcctk -Os small.c
[528] % ./a.out
Illegal instruction
[529] %
[529] % cat small.c
int a = 1, b, c = 4, d, e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|wrong code at -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97888
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The comments in that commit look incorrect btw,
// if a & b >=0 , then a >= 0.
should have been
// if a % b >=0 , then a >= 0.
(ditto the other one).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97866
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97889
Bug ID: 97889
Summary: d: OutOfMemoryError thrown when appending to an array
with a side effect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
Bug ID: 97890
Summary: Abstract virtual classes suddenly allowed as parameter
types ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97888
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And I think the commit doesn't implement what Bruno wrote.
In particular, it was
b >= 0 && a % b > 0 implies a >= 0
b >= 0 && a % b < 0 implies a <= 0
while the patch implemented
b >= 0 && a % b >= 0 implies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97886
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30270bf042049bf6aee6184e0b7688d9ca7b479d
commit r11-5126-g30270bf042049bf6aee6184e0b7688d9ca7b479d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97842
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e6dbe4e571a375330beb4266813006dc474b716
commit r10-9042-g7e6dbe4e571a375330beb4266813006dc474b716
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97843
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbb887834d78cf6a444bf9cecc29d14b4dfb9cf8
commit r10-9043-gbbb887834d78cf6a444bf9cecc29d14b4dfb9cf8
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97843
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97859
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
hmm, that file doesn't exist for the cross build.
$ find -name 's-val*.o'
./build/gcc/ada/libgnat/s-valint.o
./build/gcc/ada/libgnat/s-valuti.o
./build/gcc/ada/libgnat/s-valuns.o
./build/gcc/ada/rts/s-valde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97842
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97843
--- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw ---
Another related issue has been created in pr97889.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
For C++ testsuite file g++.dg/other/abstract8.C, the number
of errors seems to have gone down from 21 to 16.
Here is a diff of the errors:
$ diff /tmp/00 /tmp/11
1d0
< ./g++.dg/other/abstract8.C:13:9: err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97859
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
target_cpu is powerpc64le
Makefile.rtl:
ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out powerpc64,$(target_cpu))),)
ifneq ($(strip $(MULTISUBDIR)),/ppc)
LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS += $(GNATRTL_128BIT_PAIRS)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97859
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> target_cpu is powerpc64le
>
> Makefile.rtl:
>
> ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out powerpc64,$(target_cpu))),)
> ifneq ($(strip $(MULTISUBDIR)),/ppc)
> LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS += $(GNATRTL_128BIT_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I am having my first go at a git bisect. I am trying git hash 9243f0fba68339fa.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97889
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Things go wrong because there is a SAVE_EXPR on the result of the library
function call of (val ~= 7).
It ends up being compiled down to:
save = _d_arrayappendcTX (typeid(val), &val, 1),
*(save.ptr + sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97859
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose ---
patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559485.html
the build succeeds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Git hash 9243f0fba68339fa is silent on the code. Trying git hash
253c415a1acba507
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97891
Bug ID: 97891
Summary: [x86] Consider using registers on large
initializations
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97891
--- Comment #1 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
As a side note, the "xorl %edx, %edx" in the original code should have been
moved outside the loop, as it was in the code with __asm__ block.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> combine first makes recog pick negsf2_i387_1:
This should have the following insn constraint:
"TARGET_80387 && !(SSE_FLOAT_MODE_P (mode) && TARGET_SSE_MATH)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97859
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Matthias Klose :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba97b532604815333848ee30e069dde6e36ce4c9
commit r11-5129-gba97b532604815333848ee30e069dde6e36ce4c9
Author: Matthias Klose
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559487.html
First review regards this as LLVM bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97859
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97890
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The commit log refers to
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0929r2.html which was
accepted as a defect report (i.e. a fix for previous standards) in Rapperswil
2018.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97869
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:992643655c872f8332f9e8e453631a8fad52943a
commit r10-9044-g992643655c872f8332f9e8e453631a8fad52943a
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97869
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97892
Bug ID: 97892
Summary: ICE in tree check: expected class ‘type’, have
‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in c_expr_sizeof_expr, at
c/c-typeck.c:2946
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 49586
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49586&action=edit
prototype
This is a prototype patch which can serve as proof-of-concept. It needs
cleanup plus better handlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97892
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97888
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
Doh, yeah. Patch looks good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97832
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
There's then also a permute optimization left on the plate:
t.c:16:3: note: node 0x3a19590 (max_nunits=4, refcnt=2)
t.c:16:3: note: stmt 0 _153 = f11_im_76 * x1_im_142;
t.c:16:3: note: stm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97862
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > combine first makes recog pick negsf2_i387_1:
>
> This should have the following insn constraint:
>
> "TARGET_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> > This should have the following insn constraint:
> >
> > "TARGET_80387 && !(SSE_FLOAT_MODE_P (mode) && TARGET_SSE_MATH)"
> >
> > to hide it from combine in cases where relevant SSE mode is available.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So likely caused by g:f359611b363490b48a7ce0fd021f7e47d8816eb0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97673
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97579
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97579
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually still ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96377
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in tree check: expected |[10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97891
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-18
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod ---
Maybe I'm a little dense.
if we are presuming that
&x + (a + b)
implies a + b == 0, then we also should assume that
&x + a implies a == 0
and if we can make those assumptions, then
&x + 1 is garb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95192
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97870
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f2709e691148160e4f88090eaf48d3e4915b0e4
commit r11-5131-g2f2709e691148160e4f88090eaf48d3e4915b0e4
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I was going to commit the following but I'll leave it to you.
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
index d348e39c27a..95cf9e4cb00 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
@@ -5775,6 +5775,10 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> I was going to commit the following but I'll leave it to you.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> index d348e39c27a..95cf9e4cb00 100644
> --- a/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Andrew, we discussed the same idea for built-in functions at Couldron. For
instance, in:
void f (const char *s, int n)
{
char a[8];
memcpy (a, s, n); // n must be in [0, 8]
if (n < 0 ||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97893
Bug ID: 97893
Summary: Analyzer should only use CWE 690 when null ptr is from
a function return
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
--- Comment #4 from s.baur...@tu-berlin.de ---
I am aware of the warning, I disagree with it's content. INT_MIN is an int, not
a long long int. I understand why it is processed as a long long int
internally, but that should not be visible from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97894
Bug ID: 97894
Summary: gcc/attr-fnspec.h: 8 * function could be const ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97895
Bug ID: 97895
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in do_auto_deduction, at
cp/pt.c:29255
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, I missed that your patch just skips over the error node. That will
leave the attribute spec out of sync with the argument (it contains a '$' for
each VLA bound). Rather than continuing to the next
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896
Bug ID: 97896
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:11156
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97897
Bug ID: 97897
Summary: ICE tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in
compute_optimized_partition_bases, at
tree-ssa-coalesce.c:1638
Product: gcc
Version:
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
