https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton ---
I've done a few more builds of snapshot releases of gcc-11. Using with
gcc-10-20201122, I get the ICE building 11-2020115, but 11-20201108 and
20201101 both build successfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95630
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed431431e069b59a1cfdd877134873248d8c93a6
commit r11-5265-ged431431e069b59a1cfdd877134873248d8c93a6
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95630
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The backtrace from test-combination.c.exe shows the SEGV does happen in
thunk_info::release (). Ditto for test-functions.c.exe.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x75d74153 in free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97931
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 97840, which changed state.
Bug 97840 Summary: [11 regression] Bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Prathamesh Kulkarni
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5700973f4a30762b4fc21687bb5f7843e55da2e4
commit r11-5268-g5700973f4a30762b4fc21687bb5f7843e55da2e4
Author: Prathamesh Kulkarni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97963
Bug ID: 97963
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached,
at recog.c:2228 (error: insn does not satisfy its
constraints)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97963
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #12 from Arseny Solokha ---
*** Bug 97963 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96791
--- Comment #13 from Arseny Solokha ---
The testcase in comment 6 still ICEs when compiled w/ -m32:
% powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-11.0.0 -m32 -c wqugxu8a.c
wqugxu8a.c: In function 'test0':
wqugxu8a.c:8:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #4)
> I've done a few more builds of snapshot releases of gcc-11. Using with
> gcc-10-20201122, I get the ICE building 11-2020115, but 11-20201108 and
> 20201101 both bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964
Bug ID: 97964
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo