https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100382
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
With the following patch this "issue" would show. Not sure why we think
a postdom walk is appropriate for DSE rather than a reverse program order one.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100355
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
guard the testcase with c99_runtime?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100360
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It's more likely that mpfr and/or GMP were configured with a wrong CPU and thus
run into the illegal instruction. In the end this is unlikely a GCC problem.
Please verify with a debugger.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93031
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
It's still UB. Note that GCC has for a _long_ time made this assumption - just
the places we take advantage of it have grown.
Note it would be _very_ difficult to provide a -fno-strict-alignment option
bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #46 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 50737
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50737&action=edit
trial patch for testing
looking at the way other ports handle things like use of registers in veneers
etc. it s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11.1.0 regression] |[11/12 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100373
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Version|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.3.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyong at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100391
Bug ID: 100391
Summary: 128 bit arithmetic --- many unnecessary instructions
when extracting smaller parts
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100392
Bug ID: 100392
Summary: compiling result of "g++ -E -fdirectives-only" causes
"error: stray ‘#’ in program" if no newline at EOF
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100382
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80bbb7ff83d81544b09820428bdd7db9f50fe362
commit r12-378-g80bbb7ff83d81544b09820428bdd7db9f50fe362
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100360
--- Comment #4 from aliaga at uji dot es ---
Hi,
I have two different compiled versions of GMP. Initially, it is possible that I
tried to use the wrong version, but the simplest code doesn't use GMP,
therefore it doesn't matter the version which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100382
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> So, something like this reflects the current state:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/omp-low.c b/gcc/omp-low.c
> index 7b122059c6e..a0561800977 100644
> --- a/gcc/omp-low.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100392
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|compiling result o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100217
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f48c335d36674f90046b2823f0ac1c0545dc082
commit r12-379-g4f48c335d36674f90046b2823f0ac1c0545dc082
Author: Ilya Leoshkevich
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
Bug ID: 100393
Summary: Very slow compilation of switch statement with
thousands of cases
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27397
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
commit r12-380-gfd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Feb 12 16:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #35 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3f570621352970945db657455e0570208ea2d70e
commit r12-381-g3f570621352970945db657455e0570208ea2d70e
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Mar 22 13:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
--- Comment #34 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
commit r12-380-gfd7eb4bc94cafa745eba75c64fa483a1689a5aad
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Feb 12 16:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
--- Comment #1 from Dannii Willis ---
Okay, I've confirmed the regression myself, using functions_unsafe.i:
gcc-8: real 0m11.450s
gcc-10: real4m46.472s
And for comparison
clang: real 0m0.711s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100383
jyong at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-03
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99703
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67740
Sebastien Bardeau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bardeau at iram dot fr
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
--- Comment #2 from Albert Astals Cid ---
People that know more C++ than me, told me
std::visit appears unconstrained to Variants...&& being actual std::variants
(in case you inherited one, I guess), so std::visit, as an unconstrained
perfect f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99651
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100352
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:107ca5c2fd6dcb53c3cba788ae388e7e4e789ed8
commit r11-8343-g107ca5c2fd6dcb53c3cba788ae388e7e4e789ed8
Author: Tobias Burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100352
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8)
> Follow up to PR100352,
That's this PR and not the one which caused it. Correct is (comment #6):
> Issue introduced for PR99529 in
> r11-7647-ga6e9633ccb59393
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Samples: 847K of event 'cycles:u', Event count (approx.): 839745061761
Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Symbol
95.05%804298 cc1 cc1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I guess that's already done, so it has to be fixed in other ways, like by
keeping the partial sum when decreasing the size in
for (unsigned j = 0; j < i; j++)
{
if (min[j].m_count +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Frank B. Brokken from comment #4)
> Dear ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org, you wrote:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288
> >
> > Patrick Palka changed:
> >
> >W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100387
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Like I already suggested in comment 3:
Either the overloads should conflict because of [over.load]/2.3 (and the
definition of Derived should be ill-formed) or they should be hidden and not
visible in Deri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Bug ID: 100394
Summary: wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569429.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Classically it needs two DCE passes, the first removes the call LHS, the second
then no longer considers the call necessary because of EH. But even with that
fixed there are subsequent passes breaking thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I need to fix libstdc++ to accept the code with a deprecated warning, rather
than reject it. I think it only rejects it with -pedantic but it should still
be fixed to work until the deprecated constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|3.4.6, 4.3.5|
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
Jochen Roemmler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jochen447 at concept dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
Bug ID: 100395
Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100367
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Internal compiler error |[11/12 Regression] Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
That then still shows problems with the pure function and -O2, but with
standard
C++ this then works:
struct S {
int foo(int i) const { if (i) throw 42; return 0; }
};
int __attribute__((noinline)) bar2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
Bug ID: 100396
Summary: [11.1 regression] The template function overload is
not selected correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93031
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
In comment #2 I touched upon a potentially more practical way to offer
-fno-strict-alignment:
Run early work with ABI alignments: compute __alignof correctly, lay out
composite types as required by ABI,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100368
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100374
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100397
Bug ID: 100397
Summary: New test case libgomp.fortran/depobj-1.f90 fails
erratically since its introduction in r12-20
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
If we remove the unneeded 'this' capture, then it's a rejects-valid bug:
template
struct Qux {
struct A { } a_;
void AsyncOp() {
[](auto) {
struct Grault : decltype(a_) {};
Grault ptr;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #10 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
>
> Note alignment has nothing to do with strict-aliasing (-fno-strict-aliasing
> you mean btw).
I obviously meant -fno-strict-aliasing, yes.
But I think it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
--- Comment #2 from vopl at bk dot ru ---
Please, try this, also failed
/0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7
template struct Checker
{
using Some = decltype(F{}(Args{}...));
};
template concept va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #11 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #10)
>
> This particular code comes
> from some old version of zlib, and I can't test because I don't have the ARC
> background to make any sense of the gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88443
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 100395, which changed state.
Bug 100395 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100398
Bug ID: 100398
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in
gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch, at tree-cfg.c:6082
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50728|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399
Bug ID: 100399
Summary: bogus/missing -Wplacement-new
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100055
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9b6890d0b6aa030b307fdb620f8c53ed59ca3b5
commit r12-389-gc9b6890d0b6aa030b307fdb620f8c53ed59ca3b5
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||100399
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100055
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100400
Bug ID: 100400
Summary: ICE in visit_loops_in_gang_single_region
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401
Bug ID: 100401
Summary: Bogus -Wformat-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50719|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #12 from Vineet Gupta ---
Created attachment 50742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50742&action=edit
kernel patch as proposed on comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta ---
Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch
attached), outcome is the same
mov lp_count,r13;5 #, bnd.65
lp @.L201 ; lp_count:@.L50->@.L201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
commit r12-391-geef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
commit r12-391-geef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a6fc19e655e696bf0df9b7aaedf9848b23f07f3
commit r12-392-g2a6fc19e655e696bf0df9b7aaedf9848b23f07f3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
Bug ID: 100402
Summary: Crash in longjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #1 from Hannes Domani ---
Created attachment 50743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50743&action=edit
preprocessed code (-E)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #2 from Hannes Domani ---
Created attachment 50744
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50744&action=edit
assembly (-S)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #3 from Hannes Domani ---
Created attachment 50745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50745&action=edit
output of -fdump-tree-optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #14 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #13)
> Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch
> attached), outcome is the same
Vineet - it's not the ldd/std that is necessarily b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to vopl from comment #2)
> Please, try this, also failed
>
> /0/1/2/3/4/5/6///
> //7
> template struct Checker
> {
> using Some = de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #15 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #14)
> (In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #13)
> > Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch
> > attached), outcome is the same
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
Bug ID: 100403
Summary: Bogus "function may return address of local variable"
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note, the following condition in the if statement
if (x.rec <= msg && msg < x.rec + sizeof(x))
Is undefined if msg is not in the range of x.rec[0]...x.rec[RECLEN] .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404
Bug ID: 100404
Summary: Unable to disable removal of null pointer checks for
nonnull function arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a32b7d03210f1763a5ccd017181ad88bd95b07d1
commit r11-8344-ga32b7d03210f1763a5ccd017181ad88bd95b07d1
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
