https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100763
Bug ID: 100763
Summary: Diagnostics of type alias is missing scope
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Gejoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
>
> > Yes, __gcov_reset is supposed to be called at the beginning when an
> > application wants to start
> > profiling. Again,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:403bb89bd7f4ec03d4dcbdf8668d0187358631a0
commit r12-1063-g403bb89bd7f4ec03d4dcbdf8668d0187358631a0
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100756
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 50870
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50870&action=edit
incomplete patch
Yes, the simplest thing might be to push may_be_zero to assumptions, but that
way we're goin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I have an upcoming patchset that implements a range evaluator for tree
expressions (similar to determine_value_range), as well as a gimple_ranger that
evaluates expressions in a higher precision. This com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #23)
> The above yields overflow for the 16-bit expression in question:
>
> (gdb) p debug(top)
> g_2823_lsm.5_6 * 7854 + 57682
>
> (gdb) p may_overflow_p (top)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 26 May 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
>
> --- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> I have an upcoming patchset that implem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:34 AM rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
> It's probably too strict for multiple_of_p which is fine with
> overflows that preserve modulo behavior.
Could you provide an example?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100764
Bug ID: 100764
Summary: Internal compiler error when unable to deduce template
parameter value
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 26 May 2021, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
>
> --- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:34 AM rguenth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100764
--- Comment #1 from Egor Suvorov ---
UPD: compiling with `g++ -v -std=c++20` on Godbolt's GCC 11.1 yields the
following information about versions:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-11.1.0/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #4)
> Sigh, I did write & run several tests though :-(
>
> I had to add -mfpu=auto because I configured my toolchain --with-fpu=neon,
> and I need to keep -mtune=cort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
--- Comment #2 from Erich Eckner ---
We use this in archlinux32 to detect, if we can install packages, that have
sse2 opcodes:
If one sets "Architecture = auto" in /etc/pacman.conf, uname only gives "i686"
in both cases (this is how archlinux d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100573
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95d67762171f83277a5700b270c0d1e2756f83f4
commit r12-1066-g95d67762171f83277a5700b270c0d1e2756f83f4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
--- Comment #4 from Erich Eckner ---
Created attachment 50871
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50871&action=edit
cpuid probing
Does the attached program yield, what you need? (Sry, I'm quite unfamiliar with
asm in gcc)
It g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Erich Eckner from comment #2)
> We use this in archlinux32 to detect, if we can install packages, that have
> sse2 opcodes:
>
> If one sets "Architecture = auto" in /etc/pacman.conf, uname onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100764
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758
Erich Eckner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100765
Bug ID: 100765
Summary: attribute incorrectly applied during type alias
deduction
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100738
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Confirmed. Watch out for (v4sf)~a though. Note there's
Not sure for (v4sf)~a if we honor NANs, (v4sf)~a < 0 could be different from
(v4sf)a >= 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100766
Bug ID: 100766
Summary: Template type deduction fails with vector extensions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100766
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Is this a duplicate of PR 100765 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100767
Bug ID: 100767
Summary: arm: ice when inlining at -flto with different cpu and
arch settings
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100767
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100767
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The problem is that we call arm_configure_build_target() with
arm_configure_build_target (&caller_target, caller_opts, &global_options_set,
false);
But that doesn't make sense in reality - global_opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100766
--- Comment #2 from chris.a.ferguson at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Is this a duplicate of PR 100765 ?
Yes, this seems to be the same exact issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100768
Bug ID: 100768
Summary: Range iterator operations should be function objects
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
--- Comment #3 from Jan Smets ---
Is there some way there can be warned against such invalid usages? Because
these things are really hard to see on a 'macro' level.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is there some way there can be warned against such invalid usages? Because
> these things are really hard to see on a 'macro' level.
Not at the moment, although this could probably be implemented. But a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100762
--- Comment #1 from Evan Nemerson ---
It's not just comparisons. <<, >>, /, * also don't work. AFAICT only bitwise
operations and +/- work, as well as everything with a 64-bit element type
(i.e., a vector of one element)… 8/16/32-bit elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Not at the moment, although this could probably be implemented. But a
> simple rule of thumb is to avoid using scalar_storage_order with unions at
> all.
I'm going to implement a simple warning for union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4329e3dd6fb7c78948fcf9d2f5b9d873deec284
commit r12-1067-gb4329e3dd6fb7c78948fcf9d2f5b9d873deec284
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100368
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88834c7d05acf5ce4eaccda56fb04436595e2a52
commit r12-1068-g88834c7d05acf5ce4eaccda56fb04436595e2a52
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100570
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #28 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #27)
> On Wed, 26 May 2021, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
> >
> > --- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernande
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 26 May 2021, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
>
> --- Comment #28 from Andrew Macleod ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100768
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100755
--- Comment #7 from afernandez at odyhpc dot com ---
@anlauf. Thanks! I'll open a PR with the developers so that they fix these
issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 5/26/21 3:23 PM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
>
> --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 26 May 2021, amacleod at redhat d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100769
Bug ID: 100769
Summary: [D] memcmp() == 0 for small constant strings not
folded
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100769
--- Comment #1 from Witold Baryluk ---
A typo in the example (godbolt is good), I forgot the `.ptr`:
extern(C) int memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t n);
int recognize3(const char* s) {
return memcmp(s, "stract class".ptr, 12) =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100769
--- Comment #2 from Witold Baryluk ---
Hmm. It appears that using `import core.stdc.string : memcmp;` actually
resolves the problem. It looks like my manually declaration of memcmp for some
reason disabled optimisations for memcmp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77512
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100770
Bug ID: 100770
Summary: Incorrect if constexpr statement in
ranges::unique_copy
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55293
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79216
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Someplace between gcc trunk dated 20210524 (experimental) (0f3cd532fa02d178)
and 20210526 (experimental) (0eac9c60ac1f28ee), this C code:
fts_build_mail() {
int attempts = 2;
while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100771
Bug ID: 100771
Summary: Types differ between i386-elf and x86_64-elf -m32
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100772
Bug ID: 100772
Summary: Templated coroutine new function's arguments have
incorrect value categories/overload selection
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66525
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66390
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71911
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100770
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36638
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100774
Bug ID: 100774
Summary: [12 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with
-O2 -fno-tree-forwprop --param=evrp-mode=ranger-trace
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100751
--- Comment #12 from Gejoe ---
Thanks for all the info.
> Btw. why do you need calling __gcov_dump and __gcov_reset manually? How is
> your training run special?
Actually I work for a firm where the program runs on a device continually and
we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100774
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
[ver]i try compile it on gcc 11 and gcc 12
[new features]i use gcc modules features(module;export module, import,
import export)
[command]g++ *.cpp -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/include/g++-v12/bits/basic_string.h:
In member function ‘std::__cxx11::basic_string<_Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100770
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are also some failures with gcc 11 including on power 10 LE.
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/rop-3.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.ta
linux-gnueabi-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-1066-20210526112842-g95d67762171-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-armv7a-hardfloat
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20210526 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
That's related to the tune_params::LOG_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT tuning param for
Thumb mode. Setting it to FALSE in the a53 tuning params (used by a55) avoids
the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100757
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
Note that it also ICEs with e.g. -mtune=arm920t.
Hello dear friend,
How are you and hope you are safe regarding the corona virus pandemic?
As instructed by our customer earlier, see below our order requirements.
Please check and arrange the Profoma invoice for remittance.
View Excel File Online (526kb)
: VIEW EXCEL FILE : OPEN EXCEL FILE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453
Khem Raj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:401bd4adcfda9965363b1ac3ba7e1580f15d6883
commit r12-1072-g401bd4adcfda9965363b1ac3ba7e1580f15d6883
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100776
Bug ID: 100776
Summary: Error in automatic object of parameterized derived
type
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100769
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Witold Baryluk from comment #2)
> Hmm. It appears that using `import core.stdc.string : memcmp;` actually
> resolves the problem. It looks like my manually declaration of memcmp for
> some reason
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100777
Bug ID: 100777
Summary: MMA builtin usage ICEs when used in a #pragma omp
parallel and using -fopenmp
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100777
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100768
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a49a045b92f982f5617c3bbde97a33157237e25b
commit r12-1074-ga49a045b92f982f5617c3bbde97a33157237e25b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
Bug ID: 100778
Summary: Get SIGFPE on simple test with -fpe-trap=invalid and
SLP vectorization ON, with gfortran 11.1.0 on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100779
Bug ID: 100779
Summary: Partial specialization with non-deducible template
parameters accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100779
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
Another accepts-invalid example:
template struct A;
template struct B;
template struct B> { };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.1.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100719
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-25 3:04 p.m., msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> In parallel, I wonder if there's something funny about
> snprintf on HP-UX. Does the snprintf call added in r12-930 do the right thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100778
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |tree-optimization
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100752
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100754
--- Comment #2 from Martin ---
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the quick response. I had to do a bit of research to try to properly
express my suspicions.
1st the function from the dispatch table is properly called. Not problems
there:
01a4 <_ZThn4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100502
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abe8787a8492013145b275b858f70943522d7226
commit r12-1082-gabe8787a8492013145b275b858f70943522d7226
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100773
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in operator[], at |[12 Regression] ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100769
Witold Baryluk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100769
Witold Baryluk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100780
Bug ID: 100780
Summary: __builtin___sprintf_chk not optimized when it could be
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100656
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63164
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-26
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
