https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99640
Bug ID: 99640
Summary: Internal compiler error: in lookup_template_class_1,
at cp/pt.c:9895
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #17 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Good morning all,
I have attached the revised patch and an additional testcase. I had totally
forgotten about the class pointer gotcha.
OK for master?
Paul
Fortran: Fix runtime err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99624
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
It is not that easy, unfortunately.
If I compile the build with -gnata, thereby arming the pragma assert,
the build fails.
So I had to build without -gnata.
Now trying to build Ada with gcc 9.1.0
Earlier v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99414
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> s275:
> typedef float real_t;
>
> #define iterations 10
> #define LEN_1D 32000
> #define LEN_2D 256
> // array definitions
>
> real_t
> a[LEN_2D],d[LEN_2D],a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99624
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> If I compile the build with -gnata, thereby arming the pragma assert,
> the build fails.
Then this proves that the sanitizer does not work since the assertion does not
trigger in a regular build, so there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99624
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Address sanitizer of Version 11.0.1 current trunk miscompiles the Ada
compiler, maybe a previous version would work.
Undefined behavior sanitizer works.
I am now trying to build the Ada compiler with gcc 9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98099
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:57e274408c237c08d2f78722e3767651ef931170
commit r11-7711-g57e274408c237c08d2f78722e3767651ef931170
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99634
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99636
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99637
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> So the result cannot be created.
Not during constant evaluation, anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99638
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
.L4:
vmovups b(%rax), %ymm0
addq$32, %rax
vfmadd213ps aa+988(%rax), %ymm1, %ymm0
vmovups %ymm0, aa-32(%rax)
cmpq$996, %rax
jne .L4
vs.
.L4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99639
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think you need to be lucky to have V4SI "registered" first. At least I
remember we have code to deal with this situation in the constant pool
handling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99637
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > So the result cannot be created.
>
> Not during constant evaluation, anyway.
And outside of constant evaluat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99641
Bug ID: 99641
Summary: [11 Regression] opt30.adb, opt49.adb and
loop_optimization3.adb fail to build at m32
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99641
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-18
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bcf19215d88e6ec33d283352c52005f02dbc784
commit r11-7712-g3bcf19215d88e6ec33d283352c52005f02dbc784
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 99617, which changed state.
Bug 99617 Summary: gcc/cp/coroutines.cc:2807: member variables not initialised
in constructor ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99617
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99616
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96092
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99639
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually
typedef int V __attribute__((vector_size (16)));
typedef int W __attribute__((vector_size (32)));
V f1 (void) { return (V) { 1, 2, 3, 4 }; }
W f2 (void) { return (W) { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 }; }
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99179
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin20 |x86_64-apple-darwin
Build|x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99641
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
I can reproduce, it's the expansion of __builtin_memcmp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99641
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99637
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes. If the result type is a class type and the padding bits in the input
correspond to unsigned char or std::byte subobjects in the result, that's OK
(because the only parts with indeterminate values are b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99640
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95451
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv
--- Comment #10 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99363
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a98cb0f1065de3227a91b6597d62d157f8640323
commit r10-9454-ga98cb0f1065de3227a91b6597d62d157f8640323
Author: Jason Merrill
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49070
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0cc218d42c241ed286cc5af9fb7d2e45386f7a24
commit r11-7714-g0cc218d42c241ed286cc5af9fb7d2e45386f7a24
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99642
Bug ID: 99642
Summary: Compiler error while using precompiled header and
-Wmismatched-tags flag
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99593
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Lyon ---
I can confirm that the new test (as described in comment #12) works:
- alone it results in ICE in the relevant configurations (skipped otherwise)
- with the patch, it passes in the relevant configurations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99643
Bug ID: 99643
Summary: internal compiler error in build_over_call, involving
array new and copy elision
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99644
Bug ID: 99644
Summary: Add fix-it hint for
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99631
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99643
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99631
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59942
pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84437
pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99645
Bug ID: 99645
Summary: pdp-11 target produces inefficient code for sign
extend
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99642
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
--- Comment #43 from jyong at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is it as simple as running the following?
${target}-objdump -j .debug_loclists -h a.exe | grep -q 0001
A return code 0 means potentially broken linker script is used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0211fbb610c19d728c68a0c6c603826059ea9af9
commit r11-7716-g0211fbb610c19d728c68a0c6c603826059ea9af9
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99642
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99606
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. Or maybe instead check that objdump -j .debug_loclists -h (or
.debug_rnglists) has both VMA and LMA all zeros instead?
Dunno what exactly that command prints in broken and what on correct binaries
on W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99646
Bug ID: 99646
Summary: s111 benchmark of TSVC preffers -mprefer-avx128 on
zen3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99230
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 50414 [details]
> gcc11-pr99230.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Tested at r11-7589 for cris-elf, fixes the fail with no regressions.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99647
Bug ID: 99647
Summary: arm: GCC generates invalid MVE vmov instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99626
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fff9faa79043aa53d361e7f6e31b2680007a97e2
commit r11-7718-gfff9faa79043aa53d361e7f6e31b2680007a97e2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99647
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Also fails for GCC 10. Not sure if this counts as a regression since MVE only
went in with GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99296
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 50420
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50420&action=edit
proposed patch
As Jakub has mentioned, this is a problem with signed 1-bit precision.
Legacy anti-ranges has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99636
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:89d44a9f3b9ab97634b7ef894e2c83ebd83582a8
commit r11-7719-g89d44a9f3b9ab97634b7ef894e2c83ebd83582a8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99636
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 regression] |[10 Regression]
|gcc.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99626
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 regression] |[10 Regression]
|gcc.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99648
Bug ID: 99648
Summary: [11 regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr71522.c fails
starting with r11-165 for 32 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50421
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50421&action=edit
gcc11-pr91710.patch
So perhaps pass the old alignment to the caller and let that function verify if
it is reall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99649
Bug ID: 99649
Summary: GDB has issue to show backtrace if the breakpoint is
in a function with more then 8 parameters only in
target aarch64-elf ILP32
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99649
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gdb support for ilp32 has never been committed so I dont see how you are using
it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99314
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9f0ade001533c9544bf2153b6baa8844ec0bee4
commit r11-7720-gd9f0ade001533c9544bf2153b6baa8844ec0bee4
Author: Sinan Lin
Date: Thu Mar 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99649
--- Comment #2 from Filip Bascarevic ---
Hello Andre,
thank you so much for your quick reply. I also noticed that but somehow with
GCC 8.1 and GDB 8.1 this example works, no GDB endless loop with showing us
backtrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99314
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f26015ef086f68d55f1f2ae293a99d5ad3736795
commit r10-9456-gf26015ef086f68d55f1f2ae293a99d5ad3736795
Author: Sinan Lin
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99314
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:becb26eb6ef42481014dc6fb24e8bfe7ec6f51d1
commit r9-9294-gbecb26eb6ef42481014dc6fb24e8bfe7ec6f51d1
Author: Sinan Lin
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99314
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99650
Bug ID: 99650
Summary: ICE when trying to form reference to void in
structured binding
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon ---
For arm yes, but according to gcc-testresults, it's failing on ia64 and s390
too, at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
Bug ID: 99651
Summary: Cannot change attributes of USE-associated intrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57141
--- Comment #7 from Antonio ---
Ok, I have created the following bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97926
--- Comment #3 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So the underlying problem here is that the unordered comparisons are not
allowed with -ffinite-math-only due to this predicate:
;; Return 1 if OP is a comparison operation that is valid for a br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99650
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99650
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-18
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
Bug ID: 99652
Summary: inline doesn't with -mno-sse
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99653
Bug ID: 99653
Summary: [AIX] Bitfield placement
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99653
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-18
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99650
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=99652
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99502
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30b10dacd0a8c926c22eab7d4aeb52ff86534acf
commit r11-7724-g30b10dacd0a8c926c22eab7d4aeb52ff86534acf
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99502
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99422
--- Comment #31 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4670f58ebff805e35268542aac35f9791980954
commit r11-7725-ga4670f58ebff805e35268542aac35f9791980954
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-18
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
The obvious idea to do:
if (sym->attr.flavor == FL_UNKNOWN || sym->attr.flavor == FL_PROCEDURE)
in gfc_intrinsic_func_interface works, but has the side effect that for
print *, allocated(f)
('f' is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99642
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Type and spec are the messages facet, but the same problem happens with other
types. A simpler test case is:
$ (set -x && cat pch.h && cat main.cpp)
+ cat pch.h
#include
+ cat main.cpp
#include
#include "p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99650
--- Comment #4 from Csaba Ráduly ---
Is this a dup of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79372 ?
https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org/msg522821.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #20 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Looks like there is still one more case. One of our unit tests is still failing
with this patch. I will report more soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
inline long double
foo (void)
{
return 1.0;
}
gcc -S -O2 -mno-80387 double.c
double.c: In function ‘foo’:
double.c:3:1: error: x87 register return with x87 disabled
3 | {
| ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99609
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654
Bug ID: 99654
Summary: Incorrect DW_AT_entry_pc values for inlined function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 50427
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50427&action=edit
remaing false positive detection (long test)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99655
Bug ID: 99655
Summary: [11 regression] Lots of ICEs in
g++.dg/torture/pr85013.C after r11-7723
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99655
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||powerpc64*-linux-gnu
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
