https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
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=81012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> I _think_ we have an almost exact duplicate but let me take it, this is
> related to last_vuse - we're doing the lookup w/ VN_NOWALK and thus don't
> see the ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80861
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-05-23 00:00:00 |2021-9-27
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, and walking doesn't help since we may not use TBAA for the lookup but the
load handling did use TBAA and only because of that figured a better VUSE to
record the reference into the hashtables.
A smalle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So the point is that
int *c, *b;
void foo()
{
int *tem = b;
*tem = 0;
int *tem2 = c;
c = tem2;
}
and
int *c, *b;
void foo()
{
int *tem = b;
int *tem2 = c;
*tem = 0;
c = tem2;
}
are diffe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96305
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unnecessary signed x|not detecting widen
|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102079
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102079
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I think the problem here is that fortran u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60778
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Trying 7 -> 8:
> 7: {r87:DI=r89:DI>>0x3;clobber flags:CC;}
> REG_DEAD r89:DI
> REG_UNUSED flags:CC
> 8: r88:DF=[r87:DI*0x8+`mem']
> REG_DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> > retired and clocksticks after my commit. And the regression comes from
> > libc-2.31.so which shoud be the same.
>
> difference in libc-2.31.so comes from frond-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101059
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7b8d7020052110e5717230104e647f6235dd2c1
commit r12-3892-ge7b8d7020052110e5717230104e647f6235dd2c1
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7b8d7020052110e5717230104e647f6235dd2c1
commit r12-3892-ge7b8d7020052110e5717230104e647f6235dd2c1
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> Does it means cycles?
Basically yes, AFAIK. Basically I ran both versions under perf record
and then processed the output (so that is not so wide) of perf repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #10)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> > Does it means cycles?
>
> Basically yes, AFAIK. Basically I ran both versions under perf record
> and then proce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60778
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > > We have 2->2 combine now but it looks like we don't try to split inside a
> > > mem ...
> >
> > This address looks similar to how Alpha implemented unaligned l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97352
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6390c5047adb75960f86d56582e6322aaa4d9281
commit r12-3893-g6390c5047adb75960f86d56582e6322aaa4d9281
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97351
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6390c5047adb75960f86d56582e6322aaa4d9281
commit r12-3893-g6390c5047adb75960f86d56582e6322aaa4d9281
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82426
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6390c5047adb75960f86d56582e6322aaa4d9281
commit r12-3893-g6390c5047adb75960f86d56582e6322aaa4d9281
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97352
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 97352, which changed state.
Bug 97352 Summary: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr78205.c fails to vectorize all
opportunities with AVX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97352
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 97351, which changed state.
Bug 97351 Summary: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c bad vectorization with AVX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97351
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 82426, which changed state.
Bug 82426 Summary: Missed tree-slp-vectorization on -O2 and -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82426
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102489
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102492
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102483
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
Also for reduc_umin/umax/smin/smax_scal_v4qi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102494
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The vectorizer looks for a way to "shift" the whole vector by either vec_shr
or a corresponding vec_perm with constant shuffle operands. When the target
provides none of those you get element extracts and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |tree-optimization
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102490
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> #define BITS_PER_UNIT (8)
> #define MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT (16*BITS_PER_UNIT)
> #define MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_MODE (32*BITS_PER_UNIT)
>
> However, TImode is not supported on this target.
So what's the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496
Bug ID: 102496
Summary: [11 regression] extern __thread declaration in
function scope produces a non-TLS reference
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94726
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76773d3fea4daaaf5b0f6d79d9f48ffe6b3c97fd
commit r12-3896-g76773d3fea4daaaf5b0f6d79d9f48ffe6b3c97fd
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> > #define BITS_PER_UNIT (8)
> > #define MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT (16*BITS_PER_UNIT)
> > #define MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_MODE (32*BITS_PER_UNIT)
> >
> > However,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > So what's the 16-byte integer mode for this target (MAX_MODE_INT)?
>
> MIN_MODE_INT = E_QImode,
> MAX_MODE_INT = E_TImode,
So the problem is with OImode, not TImode, in the end?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 regression] extern |[11/12 regression] extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OTOH the gimple folding code doing
>
> tree type = lang_hooks.types.type_for_size (ilen * 8, 1);
>
> could eventually instead use mode_for_size (and check that size == precision)
> and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58408
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note GCC does a decent job with:
class Test {
public:
Test() = default;
Test(char *b) { }
int i;
};
thread_local Test test;
- CUT
GCC 7+ does not emit the "TLS wrapper function for test" at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> > > So what's the 16-byte integer mode for this target (MAX_MODE_INT)?
> >
> > MIN_MODE_INT = E_QImode,
> > MAX_MODE_INT = E_TImode,
>
> So the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61973
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102490
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102497
Bug ID: 102497
Summary: gimple-predicate-analysis.cc:2143:1: warning: function
'add_pred' is not needed and will not be emitted
[-Wunneeded-internal-declaration]
Product: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102497
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102488
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102490
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 102488 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102497
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102480
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually, I'm not sure what we're supposed to do here.
The ^ anchor matches the start of the input, not the start of a line (except
when using ECMAScript and multiline, but GCC doesn't support multiline y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102447
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102445
Bug 102445 depends on bug 102447, which changed state.
Bug 102447 Summary: std::regex incorrectly accepts invalid bracket expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102447
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Like the following - what's missing in realizing full opportunities is
eventually allowing vector integer modes for the move as well, like with
(int_mode_for_size (ilen * 8, 0).exists (&mode)
|| mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100520
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
commit r12-3897-g00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101876
--- Comment #5 from Marius Hillenbrand ---
The root cause is not the difference in alignment between vector types in
itself, but the resulting "confusion" in the type system when the #pragma GCC
target switches the default vector alignment.
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102490
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102474
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102497
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note GCC's diagnostic for this case is PR 32562.
Heh, you have a pretty great bugzilla cache in your head..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102396
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102414
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d06dc8a2c73735e9496f434787ba4c93ceee5eea
commit r12-3899-gd06dc8a2c73735e9496f434787ba4c93ceee5eea
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102430
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102431
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102433
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Summary|[11/12 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102434
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102434
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102492
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It started with my r12-3654-ge5597f2ad55219092929dc12ea15e1edba06df18 then.
Shorter testcase:
struct S { S (int); };
void bar (S &);
void
foo ()
{
#pragma omp simd
for (int i = 0; i < 64; i++)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102414
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102457
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91292
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
I see, thanks very much for that insightful explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102459
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
>
> I also do not see it on 11-branch, but that may be related to my local build.
Yes, I made a papering over it in the GCC-11 branch
(g:5f00ef3bc724e22628fdfd81855013115d115ebe).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102479
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102466
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
Bug ID: 102498
Summary: wrong output of printf with long double constant and
non-default rounding mode
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102473
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
Are glibc regressions real? Please show the affected glibc assembly codes
before and after.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
A testcase without printf:
#include
#define X 0xc.90fdaa22168c235p-2l
#define Y 0xc.90fdaa22168c234p-2l
int main (void)
{
volatile long double x, y;
fesetround (FE_TOWARDZERO);
x = X;
y = Y;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
Good day.
If you are not bothered, please reply to the last paperwork I sent. If the
message may not have arrived, please do it right now.
https://logotale.com/cupiditate-accusamus/quia.zip
-Original Message-
On Tuesday, 13 October 2020, 02:57, wrote:
Good day.
If you are not b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51512&action=edit
gcc12-pr102498.patch
Untested fix. 4 of the 5 constants misbehave with -frounding-math in
FE_TOWARDZERO and F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102489
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102460
--- Comment #6 from David Bold ---
> What's meaning of the 'ENTRY ENTRY1()' directive?
It is an example, alternative entry point to the subroutine SUB1.
Here is some older documentation for the ENTRY directive:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
Bug ID: 102499
Summary: Noexcept not matching fgor std::filesystem::path.
Compilation fails for clang
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499
--- Comment #1 from cqwrteur ---
noexcept is missing for begin() end(). That leads to problem that breaks clang.
I manually modify the header file and it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500
Bug ID: 102500
Summary: [12 regression] Missing include for
gfortran.dg/include_15.f90 in r12-3722
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
