https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97891
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> This problem is very similar to the one pass_rpad deals with.
We already have mov_xor for mov $0 to reg, so we only need to handle mov
$0 to mem.
and size for:
xor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97897
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d8290959ecf2c5f1dd062e57782b5e91be0f8f6
commit r11-5156-g0d8290959ecf2c5f1dd062e57782b5e91be0f8f6
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97897
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97891
--- Comment #5 from andysem at mail dot ru ---
Using a register is beneficial even for bytes and words if there are multiple
of mov instructions. But there has to be a single reg0 for all movs.
I'm not very knowlegeable about gcc internals, but w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97880
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Bug ID: 97902
Summary: x86 frame pointer missing with -fno-omit-frame-pointer
(-mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97903
Bug ID: 97903
Summary: [ARM NEON] Missed optimization in lowering test
operation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97903
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97898
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
Bug ID: 97904
Summary: ICE with AArch64 SVE intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97899
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
@Marek: Please do not forget to CC the author of a culprit revision ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.1, 11.0
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97901
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-19
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #2 from Jan Smets ---
Apologies, I omitted the -O1 / -O2
$ docker run --privileged --rm -it -v /tmp:/tmp gcc:10.2 bash -c "gcc -c
/tmp/test4.c -S -o - -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer
| grep rbp"
$ docker r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97903
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
.VCONDEQ (aka vcondeq) should be that, no? Just special case NE/EQ against
zero?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97901
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec383f0bdb4077b744d493d02afff5f13f33029e
commit r11-5158-gec383f0bdb4077b744d493d02afff5f13f33029e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r8-2488-g8e941ae950ddce17
i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access
When there is no stack access, there is no need to use frame pointer
even if -fno-omit-frame-pointer is used and call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Bug ID: 97905
Summary: ice in duplicate_decls, at cp/decl.c:2754
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97730
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d452a386b82ad364e86a3d5e970db8561ce3cb49
commit r10-9053-gd452a386b82ad364e86a3d5e970db8561ce3cb49
Author: Alex Coplan
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97730
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Jan Smets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Jan Smets ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Can you please H.J. take a look?
Maybe we can add a param that will drive the beviour?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #16 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> > If there is a git branch or so, I could also test it on my system with our
> > code whether this works as expecte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
--- Comment #7 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
A simpler example derived from alias-2.c reproduces this issue on aarch64,
ppc64, and s390x.
int a;
extern int b __attribute__ ((alias("a")));
int off;
int foo()
{
/* make sure off is ahead of a and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C++ test case seems to be:
template void a() { extern int *b; }
int *b;
git bisect proceeds in other window.
If all I am interested in is the performance of cc1plus, which
make target should I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97906
Bug ID: 97906
Summary: [ARM NEON] Missed optimization in lowering to vcage
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Iain, as I wrote below your changes seem not sufficient, I will recheck when I
build your branch with gmp/mpfr/mpc built with dynamic_lookup, but it seems
that there are some things where you missed the dyna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I am getting git bisect results which indicate either commit
cb1a4876a0e724ca3962ec14dce9e7819fa72ea5 or commit
ba97b532604815333848ee30e069dde6e36ce4c9 is at fault.
Neither seem anything to do with C++ or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91029
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49595&action=edit
gcc11-pr91029-2.patch
Untested patch implementing the op1 rules. Dunno what to do for op2, one needs
to create
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97907
Bug ID: 97907
Summary: error when compiling with optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #17)
> Iain, as I wrote below your changes seem not sufficient, I will recheck when
> I build your branch with gmp/mpfr/mpc built with dynamic_lookup, but it
> seems tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> clang: error: argument unused during compilation: '-no-pie'
> [-We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97907
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
f1 invokes undefined behaviour by modifying an input-only asm operand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> - #if defined( AIX_PHYSADR_T_CHECK )
> - typedef struct __physadr_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92294
--- Comment #8 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
>From my current understanding, gcc addresses a and b in two different ways,
which is not handled correctly by the dependency analysis / alias analysis
while employed by the cse1 pass, and then causes cs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> (4) I checked that on my system there is an older version of libasa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97907
--- Comment #2 from gustavo ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> f1 invokes undefined behaviour by modifying an input-only asm operand.
as expected... this is a test for students.
only f3 matters.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is a simple testcase that hits both ICEs.
#include
template struct a {
b x[c];
b &operator[](int i) { return x[i]; }
};
a x;
int main() {
svbool_t l;
svfloat32_t m = svmla_f32_z(l, x[0], x[1], m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83938
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
FWIW, I cherry-picked the fix onto vendors/redhat/gcc-10-branch branch.
I can build 5.10 kernel with the fixed GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93421
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b108faa9400e13a3d00dd7f71cff0ac45e29c5c9
commit r11-5167-gb108faa9400e13a3d00dd7f71cff0ac45e29c5c9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93456
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b108faa9400e13a3d00dd7f71cff0ac45e29c5c9
commit r11-5167-gb108faa9400e13a3d00dd7f71cff0ac45e29c5c9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b204d7722d30f44281dea3341070223475f1cff9
commit r11-5168-gb204d7722d30f44281dea3341070223475f1cff9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
FWIW, clang (trunk) rejects that last testcase with:
:3:6: error: array has sizeless element type '__SVFloat32_t'
b x[c];
^
:6:19: note: in instantiation of template class 'a<__SVFloat32_t, 2>'
requeste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97906
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
That means the initial lowering is "bad" or the target doesn't have a way to
do this compare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92535
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
I fixed some issues
1) merging of OBJ_TYPE_REF was broken
2) last version of my COMPONENT_REF patch clears incorrectly OEP_ADDRESS_OF
3) gimple clobbers mismatches for no good reason
4) volatile memory ref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97907
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97805
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
Fix #2 works for me.
But then we hit:
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc
-11/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/bin/ -B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-11/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/lib/
-is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97805
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Fix #2 works for me.
OK, thanks.
> Probably, should be new PR.
Nope, it's PR ada/97504, please follow up there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97908
Bug ID: 97908
Summary: Should _ZTI and _ZTS symbols be marked GNU_UNIQUE
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97504
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
David, to build just cc1plus: 'make -C gcc cc1plus -j$how_many_cpus_available'
pass 'CXXFLAGS=$whatever' to override the default (usually -O2 -g)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97908
--- Comment #1 from Jan Engelhardt ---
On second thought, this is practically the same issue as functions going away
(like example below), so wontfix seems appropriate.
-- main
#include
struct base { virtual ~base() {}; };
int main()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #5)
> David, to build just cc1plus: 'make -C gcc cc1plus
> -j$how_many_cpus_available'
>
> pass 'CXXFLAGS=$whatever' to override the default (usually -O2 -g)
$ cd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97841
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97713
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> > Now, should objcopy implement the relocation?
>
> Nick proposed a patch that errors out on current gcc output.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91029
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 49597
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49597&action=edit
op2_range implementation
I think this does what you want for op2_range.
I tried it with:
void f1 (int i, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 11/19/20 10:18 AM, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
>
> --- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #5)
>> Dav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97805
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2729378d0905a04e476a8bdcaaf0288f417810ec
commit r11-5170-g2729378d0905a04e476a8bdcaaf0288f417810ec
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97805
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
>
>
> > clang: erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #12)
> > Maybe I'm a little dense.
> >
> > if we are presuming that
> > &x + (a + b)
> > implies a + b == 0, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97909
Bug ID: 97909
Summary: expr_not_equal_to (mainly in match.pd) vs. ranger
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97910
Bug ID: 97910
Summary: [GCOV]"&&" lead to incorrect code coverage when
multiple expressions of a single statement fall in
different lines
Product: gcc
Version: 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97911
Bug ID: 97911
Summary: [11 regression] make install issue undefined reference
to std::__throw_bad_array_new_length after r11-5142
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97908
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97873
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49588|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97912
Bug ID: 97912
Summary: Get rid of location-invariant requirement in
std::function small object optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97912
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> It would be good to remove the trivially copyable requirement, and store any
> type of suitable size and alignment to fit in the buffer.
Well, we'd still req
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97904
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|richard.sandiford at arm dot com |rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:255483e5b70beade63efdf1f3efa6b814831da08
commit r11-5176-g255483e5b70beade63efdf1f3efa6b814831da08
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97909
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Macleod ---
Yeah, I'm planning as one of the next steps to replace the
SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO/get_range_info interface with the new range_query interface
from value-query.h
Then we can wire that into the Ranger instance t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97704
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97704
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92535
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Current mainline with
1) fix to COMPONENT_REFs described above
2) improvement of ODR type having for THIS pointers
3) gimple_clobber fix (already approved)
4) compare_ao_refs fix for volatile accesses
5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97296
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97913
Bug ID: 97913
Summary: -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks not working properly
with constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97914
Bug ID: 97914
Summary: -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks not working properly
with constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97883
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97895
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97914
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97913
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 97914 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97913
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97908
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97852
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
