https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103229
Bug ID: 103229
Summary: gcc/gimple-range-cache.cc:654:10: runtime error: null
pointer passed as argument 1, which is declared to
never be null
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
Bug ID: 103230
Summary: ipa-modref-tree.h:550:33: runtime error: load of value
255, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
> Happens with UBSAN compiler for:
>
> $ gcc gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr71494.c -O1 -flto
> ...
> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h:550:33: runtime error: load
> of value 255, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
> #0 0x18acc38 in modref_tree::merge(modref_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> Happens with UBSAN compiler for:
>
> $ gcc gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr71494.c -O1 -flto
> ...
> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/ipa-modref-tree.h:550:33: runtime error: load
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> How do you build ubsan compiler?
F="-O0 -g -fsanitize=undefined" ; make -j16 all-host -k CFLAGS="$F"
CXXFLAGS="$F" LDFLAGS="$F"
is the fastest approach.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 51787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51787&action=edit
draft patch
This "fixes" the problem of negative index access, and adjusts vector subscript
handling, so that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177
--- Comment #15 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #9)
> I'm still trying to understand how an
> option names -Werror=char-subscripts could trigger an
> error. There are no subscripts.
There _are_ subscripts, just look
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> > How do you build ubsan compiler?
>
> F="-O0 -g -fsanitize=undefined" ; make -j16 all-host -k CFLAGS="$F"
> CXXFLAGS="$F" LDFLAGS="$F"
>
> is the fastest approach.
Thanks, it is similar to what I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> > How do you build ubsan compiler?
>
> F="-O0 -g -fsanitize=undefined" ; make -j16 all-host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka ---
Bit unrelated but shows that threader seems bit expensive on other builds too.
Getting stats from cc1plus LTO-link with -flto-partition=one it seems that
backwards threader and dom are two slowest tree passes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #3)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> > > How do you build ubsan compiler?
> >
> > F="-O0 -g -fsanitiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103230
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
The canonical approach would be using config/bootstrap-ubsan.mk config file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103229
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Untested, but if someone wants to test and commit, feel free.
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-cache.cc b/gcc/gimple-range-cache.cc
index a63e20e7e49..b347edeb474 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-range-cache.cc
+++ b/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103219
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103229
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Untested, but if someone wants to test and commit, feel free.
Nevermind, I'll pass it through the gauntlet and commit.
version 12.0.0 2024 (experimental) [master r12-5239-ga8029add306] (GCC)
[659] %
[659] % gcctk -O0 -w small.c
[660] %
[660] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
[661] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
[662] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
gcctk: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
cc1
Please s
> [659] %
> [659] % gcctk -O0 -w small.c
> [660] %
> [660] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
> [661] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
> [662] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
> gcctk: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
> cc1
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preprocessed source if app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> [659] %
> [659] % gcctk -O0 -w small.c
> [660] %
> [660] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
> [661] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
> [662] % gcctk -O1 -w small.c
> gcctk: internal compiler error: Segmentatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102906
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r12-5014-g6b8b959675a3e14c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103226
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Simplified test-case:
cat pr103231.c
void BHbHb2l_1912();
int a;
int bs;
long g_1496_BK8K8el_2738;
long fn1_l_1522;
int fn1_l_1708;
int fn1_l_2085;
int fn1_l_2664;
int fn1_bv;
int fn1_l_2354;
int fn1_l_2188
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #6 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Simplified test-case:
Oh, great; thanks, Martin!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 51789
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51789&action=edit
similar problem on aarch64 kernel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80047
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Fixed in trunk.
I'm not sure if this should be backported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87656
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> Any reason not to put -Wnested-externs in -Wall or -Wextra?
It warns for any "extern" declaration in other than file scope. This is
completely standard C,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103229
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7ef5da3a9c348c35abb72d6f64f209f5661cfa4
commit r12-5242-ga7ef5da3a9c348c35abb72d6f64f209f5661cfa4
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103229
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 103229, which changed state.
Bug 103229 Summary: gcc/gimple-range-cache.cc:654:10: runtime error: null
pointer passed as argument 1, which is declared to never be null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103229
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103232
Bug ID: 103232
Summary: scoped template specalization is not supported (not
with C+17 nor C++20)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103232
--- Comment #1 from dennis luehring ---
gcc 11.2
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/jG8f6Phjc
clang 7
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/c4Md5Yh1x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
--- Comment #16 from dennis luehring ---
the sample still gets reduced by clang to 160 with -O2 or -O3
clang:
main: # @main
mov eax, 160
ret
and gcc 11.2/trunk producing
-O2
main:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
Bug ID: 103233
Summary: Warning from system libraries in user code: CWE-476
-Werror=analyzer-null-dereference
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar ---
$ cat /etc/os-release
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
ID=debian
HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/";
SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support";
BUG_REPORT_URL="http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103232
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dl.soluz at gmx dot net
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103234
Bug ID: 103234
Summary: ipa-sra is broken (and therefore disabled) on
variably sized parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #3 from alx.manpages at gmail dot com ---
Hi Jonathan,
On 11/14/21 15:57, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
>
> Jonathan Wakely changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #9 from Zhendong Su ---
A very simple repro (with ulimit -s 32):
[530] % compile.sh small.c
*** Compiling with: gcctk -O1 small.c
gcctk: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
cc1
Please submit a full
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #9)
> A very simple repro (with ulimit -s 32):
Well, using a stack limit of 32B does not make sense, pretty much any
executable hits stack overflow with such a small li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103231
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
But yes, with ulimit -s 512, one can reduce it to:
$ cat pr103231.c
long g_1496_BK8K8el_2738;
int fn1_l_1522;
int fn1_l_2664;
long fn1_l_1761;
unsigned int fn1_l_1812;
int fn1_l_2189;
int fn1_by;
int fn1_l_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103235
Bug ID: 103235
Summary: [12 Regression] Recent change to atomics triggers ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #16 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
In addition to comment #1
here's an excerpt of an existing test with just one dimension:
$ cat f_pr86389.f90
! PR 19239. Check for various kinds of vector subscript. In this test,
! all vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103236
Bug ID: 103236
Summary: ICE: in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.c:13162
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #17 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
Do we want to address arrays always at position 0 (maybe to help graphite ?) or
would it be sufficient to just not dereference the array "before" the first
position like Mikael suggests in commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103235
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103236
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
may be dup of PR99590.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51787|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103235
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Can you please double-check? It just reproduced for me. Perhaps you were
missing -I./ which is sometimes needed for cross toolchains to *-linux.
[jlaw@dl360p gcc]$ ./cc1 -O2 pthread_cancel.i -I./ -quiet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15)
> One possibility would be to extend the patch Sandra posted at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055563.html
> to scalarization.
Probably nic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 51792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51792&action=edit
gdb-bug.cc
Found similar bug in gdb/c++ at gdb/language.c. It might have slightly better
loop structure.
-csky-linux
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --with-system-zlib --disable-libcc1
--disable-libcilkrts --disable-libsanitizer --disable-libmpx
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 2024 (experimental) (GCC)
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2
4-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with:../configure
--prefix=/home/haoxin/haoxin-data/compilers/gcc/build/ --enable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=release --enable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103238
Bug ID: 103238
Summary: c++ Feature: array-copy experimental extensions
implementing P1997
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101853
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #5)
> I am still seeing these today with
> g:a40970cf043553f0ca09a3b7be1c5a949623d915, r12-4318
[list elided]
For cris-elf too. For cris-elf, be5bdccd865b (r12-4056)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103239
Bug ID: 103239
Summary: confusing template argument deduction error message
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101853
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Nobody is maintaining the modules code right now. This was introduced by a
libstdc++ change, but as far as I know the library code is correct and this is
just a compiler bug that should get fixed in stage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #19)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15)
> > One possibility would be to extend the patch Sandra posted at
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #4)
> Created attachment 51792 [details]
> gdb-bug.cc
That was filed as PR 102216.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|wrong code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103236
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103235
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103235
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103239
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103184
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103219
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Looks like a latent bug elsewhere as we're not threading anything. For that
> matter, test fails even with -fno-thread-jumps.
Right, it is a dup of one of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||103218
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80047
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 80047, which changed state.
Bug 80047 Summary: fixincludes/fixincl.c: PVS-Studio: Improper Release of
Memory Before Removing Last Reference (CWE-401)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80047
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21823
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21824
Bug 21824 depends on bug 21823, which changed state.
Bug 21823 Summary: MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/fixincludes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21823
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21824
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Alfred M. Szmidt from comment #1)
> > Could someone go over these bugs and commit the pending patches?
>
> Only bug 21823 is left now.
OK, that's c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103240
Bug ID: 103240
Summary: std::type_info::before gives wrong answer for ARM EABI
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103240
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97711
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97711
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Mine, the patch which fixes PR 103216 fixes this too.
Note it does not fix it fullly on the gimple level, we are left with:
_1 = x_3(D) & 1;
_7 = _1 != 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103240
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97711
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > Mine, the patch which fixes PR 103216 fixes this too.
>
> Note it does not fix it fully on the gimple level, we a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54571
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
James Y Knight changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foom at fuhm dot net
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241
Bug ID: 103241
Summary: Odd 0 length entries in location lists
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51785 [details]
> The v2 incomplete patch
>
> Hongtao, please finish it. Thanks.
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
Ofee Oficsu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oficsu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95117
Ofee Oficsu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70690
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd95d75f3412e1a7debab7c6c602ba409f274eb5
commit r12-5254-gbd95d75f3412e1a7debab7c6c602ba409f274eb5
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
95 matches
Mail list logo
