https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
--- Comment #8 from martin ---
Seems to work fine with current master. Not even valgrind complains.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103039
--- Comment #4 from martin ---
Is there any chance of fixing this regression (in particular the associate
block variant) till gfortran-12 release? Having an openmp block within an
associate block should not be that uncommon in modern code, right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87448
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
With gfortran-12, the ICE is gone, but the produced error message does not look
right.
mod.f90:12:25:
12 |associate(l => len(cs))
| 1
Error: Symbol ‘l’ at (1) has no IMPLICIT t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104209
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104210
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[11/12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104214
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So PR81196 is exactly the bug the code in niter analysis was added for.
We have
for (;p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100961
--- Comment #4 from martin ---
In contrast to gfortran-11, with current master I do not see any errors or
segfaults (not even with valgrind) anymore. Seems to have been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
Bug ID: 104219
Summary: riscv64-elf cross compiler build fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, documentation
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102583
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> Simplify
> _4 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_1, _1, { 4, 5, 6, 7, 4, 5, 6, 7 }>;
> _5 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_4, 128, 0>;
>
> to
>
> _5 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_1, 128, 128>;
>
> in ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Segfault with openmp block |[12 Regression] Segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104220
Bug ID: 104220
Summary: [12 Regression] Build fail:
libgfortran/ieee/issignaling_fallback.h:140:21: error:
token "=" is not valid in preprocessor expressions
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104220
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Testing now:
--- a/libgfortran/ieee/issignaling_fallback.h
+++ b/libgfortran/ieee/issignaling_fallback.h
@@ -140 +140 @@ __issignalingl (long double x)
-#elif (__LDBL_DIG__ = 33) && __LDBL_IS_IEC_60559__
+#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It does check for it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
--- Comment #12 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right and did you happen to see a perf increase on these benchmarks with any of
the patches I mentioned the hash of in the previous comment?
Just to explain a bit further what I think is going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104217
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104214
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So it looks like we registered q_4(D) != 2147483647 && p_3(D) != -2147483648
as assumptions as we set no_overflow to false before using (delta + step - 1) /
step for niter in number_of_iterations_lt.
So fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #13 from Stas Sergeev ---
Found another problem.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libsanitizer/asan/asan_posix.cpp#L53
The comment above that line talks about
SS_AUTODISARM, but the line itself does
not account for any f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104220
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99932
--- Comment #11 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #10)
> Rerunning the entire testsuite though shows that the non-32-vector-length
> test-cases are still failing.
Minimal example:
...
int
main (void)
{
#pragma acc para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104214
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
variant testcase that was vectorized before but is not now where we cannot use
simple pointer relational compare reasoning:
int a[1024];
void __attribute__((noipa))
foo (int p, int q)
{
int i = 0;
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99932
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 52285
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52285&action=edit
Cuda reproducer non-32 vector length
[ On T400, driver version 470.94 ]
NVCC SASS:
...
$ ./do.sh
NVCC SASS, p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
Bug 103998 depends on bug 103997, which changed state.
Bug 103997 Summary: [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr88531-??.c
scan-assembler-times FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104058
Bug 104058 depends on bug 103997, which changed state.
Bug 103997 Summary: [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr88531-??.c
scan-assembler-times FAILs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103997
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104220
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103998
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104207
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589177.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104207
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Florian Weimer :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab2a2457780d224343ce05e7d8e2964c6a47fd83
commit r12-6857-gab2a2457780d224343ce05e7d8e2964c6a47fd83
Author: Florian Weimer
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104207
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104221
Bug ID: 104221
Summary: member functions defined in separate files of classes
declared in module partitions won't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104214
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e211a02290f3b3533b56c593fc7b95edb8593b0
commit r12-6858-g2e211a02290f3b3533b56c593fc7b95edb8593b0
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #13)
> Found another problem.
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libsanitizer/asan/asan_posix.
> cpp#L53
> The comment above that line talks about
> SS_AUT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #15 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> Please report to upstream as well.
I'd like some guidance on how should that
be addressed, because that will allow to
specify the upstream.
I am not entirely su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104222
Bug ID: 104222
Summary: std::basic_string::resize_and_overwrite passes an
unexpected value to user's callable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104222
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104220
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Compiles now but all three testcase fail at execution time with:
(1) gfortran.dg/ieee/signaling_1.f90 (+ exit code 44):
Note: The following floating-point exceptions are signalling: IEEE_INVALID_FLAG
STOP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104198
--- Comment #9 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
I believe I know what's happening and it's indeed something that could also
happen on other targets.
I did not anticipate backends re-creating the initial condition for the case
when we pass it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219
--- Comment #3 from Kito Cheng ---
Patch posted to mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589225.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104223
Bug ID: 104223
Summary: GCC unable to inline trivial functions passed to
views::filter and transform unless lifted into types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104220
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70230
Allan McRae changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||allan at archlinux dot org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102478
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10 Regression] during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
Allan McRae changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||allan at archlinux dot org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104172
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79b0091b13eb7dce0294407d9bd78750df10180d
commit r11-9510-g79b0091b13eb7dce0294407d9bd78750df10180d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104224
Bug ID: 104224
Summary: Testcases for analyzer "uninit" from fedora-devel
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104224
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
gcc trunk with -fanalyzer: https://godbolt.org/z/T17TbqYdx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104220
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65343
Marc Poulhiès changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||poulhies at adacore dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99932
--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #10)
> [ FTR, T400, driver 470.94 ]
>
> Interestingly, changing the default ptx version to 6.3 makes the minimal
> test-case pass, as well as the full parallel-dims.c
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
Bug ID: 104225
Summary: accepts-invalid new expression that uses deleted
implicit default constructor of class specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104226
Bug ID: 104226
Summary: ICE in fold_vec_perm, at fold-const.cc:10483
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103970
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
Last rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103970
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Andre V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104226
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65343
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67102
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aeac414923aa1e87986c7fc6f9b921d89a9b86cf
commit r12-6861-gaeac414923aa1e87986c7fc6f9b921d89a9b86cf
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104227
Bug ID: 104227
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE virtual memory exhausted:
Cannot allocate memory
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104228
Bug ID: 104228
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in df_install_ref, at
df-scan.cc:2294
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275
--- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
Seems to be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104229
Bug ID: 104229
Summary: ICE in gfc_build_null_descriptor, at
fortran/trans-array.cc:536
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The use in your example is undefined in C (as is any other use of an
indeterminate pointer value). C++ made using pointers made it
implementation-defined a few years ago while still allowing for it to crash,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I meant to say "C++ made it implementation-defined to use a pointer made
indeterminate by the pointee's lifetime having ended."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93740
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
I think I was able to narrow it down to the true root cause. Following fails in
all gcc versions that supports C++11 and newer:
struct foo
{
void baz();
void bar();
};
static_assert(&foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100275
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=67804
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476
--- Comment #16 from Stas Sergeev ---
I think I'll propose to apply something like this to linux kernel:
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 6f3476dc7873..0549212a8dd6 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -4153
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 25.01.2022 um 19:20 schrieb msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
> I meant to say "C++ made it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104226
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
argument of
type 'int&' because '(int&)(& t)' is not a variable
14 | V<(t.*(&T::a))> v3;
| ^
:15:15: error: '&(((int&)(& t)) + 4)' is not a valid template
argument of type 'int&' because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fe5cee6f62a0b229d9d51616b7490331d39b5ddd
commit r12-6862-gfe5cee6f62a0b229d9d51616b7490331d39b5ddd
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21551a4af1be07d7b98221639ec1bd18106c1f80
commit r10-10418-g21551a4af1be07d7b98221639ec1bd18106c1f80
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5f7e0838e1573f4cc33a6f2c70c60187d7a63af
commit r10-10419-ga5f7e0838e1573f4cc33a6f2c70c60187d7a63af
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 67804, which changed state.
Bug 67804 Summary: ICE on data initialization of type(character) with wrong data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67804
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101762
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
commit r12-6863-gbc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101532
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
commit r12-6863-gbc90dd0ecf02e11d47d1af7f627e2e2acaa40106
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #27 from Michael Cronenworth ---
I can also say that gcc 11 has fixed this. Thanks. I'm happy to close as I will
not be using 10.x anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104225
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101532
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=104225
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Removing the COMPARISON_CLASS_P check regresses uninit-pr74762.C. So how about
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.cc b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
index 22d3dd1e2ad..6534a7fd320 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104212
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34e8dafb76240f69c729c11cfc8c8fc4f717bc17
commit r12-6864-g34e8dafb76240f69c729c11cfc8c8fc4f717bc17
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104187
--- Comment #5 from Dávid Bolvanský ---
So you prefer eg.
g = a[i] - [[gnu::always_inline]] foo(x, y) + 2 * bar();
over
g = a[i] - __builtin_always_inline(foo(x, y)) + 2 * bar();
?
What is your proposed syntax?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104231
Bug ID: 104231
Summary: private ignored in non-type template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232
Bug ID: 104232
Summary: spurious -Wuse-after-free after conditional free
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||104075
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104191
--- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #0)
> > and it should be solely determined by the internal node count type.
>
> What is the internal node
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://bugzilla.redhat.com |https://bugzilla.redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104227
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
