https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org|marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98608
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98611
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[concepts] internal |[concepts] ICE in
|comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98273
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e275dccfc2467b3fe39012a3dd2a80bac257dd0
commit r11-6577-g4e275dccfc2467b3fe39012a3dd2a80bac257dd0
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98478
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
according to sve-ieee-micro-2017.pdf predicate registers is
Each predicate consists ofeight enable bits per 64-bit vector element, allowing
down to per byte-granularity. For any given element size only the
le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98478
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
> predicates register are much more like vector mask in avx2, but not integer
> mask in avx512.
So avx512 integer mask may not suitable to be represented by VnBImode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98606
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98611
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[concepts] ICE in |[concepts][10/11
|get_u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The sanitizers generally diagnose what the C or C++ language spec say, not what
the various extensions allow, it is the same also for shifts etc.
So I think it is correct that this is diagnosed by default.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
--- Comment #3 from Martin Uecker ---
Fair enough. But there is also no way to selectively turn it off (or I am not
aware of it). The warning for < 0 is important and useful while the warning
for == 0 is pedantic and not useful by itself when we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say it is similar with shifts, the diagnostics about the shift count being
negative or too large is highly useful, the diagnostics about the various
lshift properties shifting into sign bit or shifting le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
I would recommend changing just libsanitizer to allow something like
UBSAN_OPTIONS=vla_bounds_allow_zero=1. Should be relatively small change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98478
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not really possible, as the compiler assumes for
-fno-sanitize-recover=vla that when we call the library routine, it never
returns (it is noreturn).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95852
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2106317cd6673e110b347c70f21e25fbb23379e
commit r11-6579-ga2106317cd6673e110b347c70f21e25fbb23379e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95852
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9febe9e4be7812519258ea3ed4f38bbc1a61624b
commit r11-6580-g9febe9e4be7812519258ea3ed4f38bbc1a61624b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95867
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a6c37e6ae520534993ef76dd45d016c8c86db21
commit r11-6581-g9a6c37e6ae520534993ef76dd45d016c8c86db21
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95852, which changed state.
Bug 95852 Summary: Failure to optimize __builtin_mul_overflow pattern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95852
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 95867, which changed state.
Bug 95867 Summary: Failure to optimize successive multiplications of
___uint128_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95867
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98609
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> That is not really possible, as the compiler assumes for
> -fno-sanitize-recover=vla
which is not the default value/
> that when we call the library routine, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
There's a self-container test-case:
$ cat resolver.ii
class Resolver {
int GetCMIName();
virtual char GetCMISuffix() { return 'c'; }
};
int Resolver::GetCMIName() { GetCMISuffix(); return 0; }
int main(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
I've got it!
It can be fixed with -fno-rtti and apparently libcody's objects do miss that :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, that is a fix for the bootstrap-ubsan issues, but not the above small
testcase showing the problems for users.
But sure, as this is a problem that exists many years and nobody reported it
before, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
When building GCC w/o bootstrap I see that libcody properly sets -fno-rtti:
g++ -std=c++11 -g -O2 -fno-enforce-eh-specs -fno-stack-protector
-fno-threadsafe-statics -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
-fdebug-prefix-m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98560
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98526
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 49937
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49937&action=edit
patch
Sth like this. But I'm somewhat confused about the partial vector code in the
"else" branch:
/* All
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|10.3
Summary|[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
Bug ID: 98618
Summary: aarch64: oob adrp offset causes relocation truncated
to fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21
Product: gcc
Version: 8.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer ---
Is the test case really valid? It involves an out-of-bounds array access, after
all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
--- Comment #2 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #1)
> Is the test case really valid? It involves an out-of-bounds array access,
> after all.
no it doesn't, n is signed long and its value can be such that th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||duanbo3 at huawei dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 96834, which changed state.
Bug 96834 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] Segmentation fault signal terminated
program cc1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98526
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Created attachment 49937 [details]
> patch
>
> Sth like this. But I'm somewhat confused about the partial vector code in
> the
> "else" branch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #10 from Jiangning Liu
---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #9)
> It looks like a SOA/AOC opt opportunity which is discussed in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/
> cauldron2015?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=Olga+Golovanevsky_+Memor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98526
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04bff1bbfc11a974342c0eb0c0d65d902e36e82e
commit r11-6587-g04bff1bbfc11a974342c0eb0c0d65d902e36e82e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98619
Bug ID: 98619
Summary: aarch64: ICE (verify_flow_info failed)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #11 from Jiangning Liu
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2021, jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
> >
> > --- Comment #7 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98619
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
We might be able to CFG cleanup this to a non-goto asm [unless the 'goto'
invokes
semantic differences elsewhere]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
--- Comment #4 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #1)
> Is the test case really valid? It involves an out-of-bounds array access,
> after all.
sorry you are right the indexes are too far, a better test is
lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
--- Comment #5 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> I fixed this in GCC10:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git&a=commit;
> h=7d3b27ff12610fde9d6c4b56abc70c6ee9b6b3db
>
> So this just needs to be backported.
than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85811
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly could be backported even if not a regression but I guess the
wrong-code is really restricted to cases we don't hit in the wild.
That said, not objecting if anybody wants to backport to GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bernd Edlinger :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ebf79fcd4cfb43353e6a000f700b07295e78026
commit r11-6588-g6ebf79fcd4cfb43353e6a000f700b07295e78026
Author: Bernd Edlinger
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91403
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84684e0f78c20c51492722a5b95cda778ad77073
commit r11-6589-g84684e0f78c20c51492722a5b95cda778ad77073
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
>
> The analyzer updates the gimple stmt uids; if I disable this updating the
> crash doesn't happen.
Hm, why do you update them in LTO WPA phase?
Note that they are used by cgraph_edges to point to a proper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
g:895fdc1f4c9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98612
--- Comment #5 from Guillaume Piolat ---
My reasoning for reporting (while it is minor) is the following:
- it might not be a conscious choice from GCC developers
- this is the only intrinsics I've found in mmx/sse/sse2 for which GCC has
differen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Sidwell ---
libcody should be being built with -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti, that it isn;t
suggests I'm configuring it wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
--- Comment #4 from Andrea Corallo ---
Thank you for looking into it! I tried my self but with no success
Thank you for looking into it! I tried my self but with no success
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fd6247a3014038af349db3a01748b5dc17d87a0
commit r10-9245-g0fd6247a3014038af349db3a01748b5dc17d87a0
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eddcb627ccfbd97e025cf366cc3f3bad76211785
commit r10-9246-geddcb627ccfbd97e025cf366cc3f3bad76211785
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98620
Bug ID: 98620
Summary: SFINAE code in class specialization generate warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98117
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:69894ce172412996c10c89838717980ede7c9003
commit r10-9247-g69894ce172412996c10c89838717980ede7c9003
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98455
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
--- Comment #18 from Emil Jiří Tywoniak ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17)
> Any chance you can try with a toolchain using binutils-2.35?
>
> As I indicated in https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+bug/1747966
> there's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
--- Comment #19 from Emil Jiří Tywoniak ---
(In reply to Emil Jiří Tywoniak from comment #18)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17)
> > Any chance you can try with a toolchain using binutils-2.35?
> >
> > As I indicated in https://bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98621
Bug ID: 98621
Summary: ICE: x from g referenced in f
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95731
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=98455
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is you are leaving the virtual PHI arguments NULL and thus
ssa_redirect_edge runs into
if (def == NULL_TREE)
continue;
but then later flush_pending_stmts expects a 1:1 correspon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98620
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-11
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65480
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fd49da23bf579b84940bd96bf942bd99cfa187a
commit r10-9249-g4fd49da23bf579b84940bd96bf942bd99cfa187a
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68735
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fd49da23bf579b84940bd96bf942bd99cfa187a
commit r10-9249-g4fd49da23bf579b84940bd96bf942bd99cfa187a
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96083
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93beee71a5ba5ee97a072d94780b140ae159fd74
commit r10-9250-g93beee71a5ba5ee97a072d94780b140ae159fd74
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1dba8a228e7d9497d2ddbd012b4343f99b87823
commit r9-9168-gb1dba8a228e7d9497d2ddbd012b4343f99b87823
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98622
Bug ID: 98622
Summary: [11 regression] new test case pr98273.C in r11-6577
doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98620
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98481
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3dd0d3ee1d2a988e7f3a3e8f009fcf328f16d2ed
commit r11-6592-g3dd0d3ee1d2a988e7f3a3e8f009fcf328f16d2ed
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Also related to this issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055581.html:
In my understanding (see linked email and spec quote in comment 0),
CFI_type_signed_char is an integer type – and,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98623
Bug ID: 98623
Summary: sanitizer does not diagnose when passing pointers to
arrays of incorrect run-time length
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
I set them so that each stmt has a unique id, unique across all functions. I
was assuming from the comments I quoted above in gimple.h that this is safe to
do, but it sounds like from your comment that WPA m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98622
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
Bug ID: 98624
Summary: UBSAN: gcc/cp/module.cc:5895:29: runtime error: member
call on null pointer of type 'struct module_state'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
Bug ID: 98625
Summary: UBSAN: gcc/cp/module.cc:977:15: runtime error: left
shift of negative value -1
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98625
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98624
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98626
Bug ID: 98626
Summary: UBSAN: vec.h:591:30: runtime error: member access
within null pointer of type 'struct vec'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98626
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cbe9758ff494d55d558a2a0c5e8702c50fcebdf0
commit r11-6593-gcbe9758ff494d55d558a2a0c5e8702c50fcebdf0
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98627
Bug ID: 98627
Summary: GCC emits unaligned memory access instructions causing
address error exceptions with the 68000 architecture
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98628
Bug ID: 98628
Summary: internal compiler error: in get_or_create_cluster, at
analyzer/store.cc:2040
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98628
--- Comment #1 from Michael Ortmann ---
Created attachment 49939
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49939&action=edit
The preprocessed file (*.i*) that triggers the bug
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
