https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84695
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missed opportunity to issue |Missed opportunity to issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
[local count: 1073741824]:
_2 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__v16qi>(x_3(D));
_6 = _2 == { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
_7 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(_6);
_4 = __builtin_ia32_pmovmskb128 (_7)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103920
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104092
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b6370295d1efaa563f6d8c45f1fb779c3db452e
commit r12-7045-g5b6370295d1efaa563f6d8c45f1fb779c3db452e
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104373
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
When not optimizing we intentionally warn about only conditionally executed
cases early - and not optimizing means we do not detect trivially unreachable
paths like this.
I don't know whether we have good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104365
--- Comment #11 from Andris Pavenis ---
OK. New version:
20220203-1.cpp: In function 'int main()':
20220203-1.cpp:19:24: warning: suspicious use of overloaded 'Test(const char
[4], const char[4])'
21 | Test test("foo", "bar");
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104373
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101885
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49365d511ac9b64009b1de11ef8a941f59407f67
commit r12-7046-g49365d511ac9b64009b1de11ef8a941f59407f67
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:876e70d4681332a600492173af0c7259e5a438c6
commit r12-7047-g876e70d4681332a600492173af0c7259e5a438c6
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not removing the regression marker yet - can ARM folks please update the
trunk numbers with a fully built compiler (w/o checking)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12341
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This inheritance case is "name hiding" and we have other requests for warnings
about it. I think it should be distinct from -Wshadow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I've seen things like this with other structures passed as parameters.
Part of the problem here is that the gimple expansion does not see the argument
unpacking or understand how the parameters are passed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104132
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
--- Comment #29 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #28)
> I'm not removing the regression marker yet - can ARM folks please update the
> trunk numbers with a fully built compiler (w/o checking)?
Sure, I'll come ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56556
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #43 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd14cdceb9c6f4800e25a9fbca635a1d4c06fd32
commit r12-7048-gbd14cdceb9c6f4800e25a9fbca635a1d4c06fd32
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38948b77dbc16f4c6cf6cff8661bab699b306f03
commit r12-7049-g38948b77dbc16f4c6cf6cff8661bab699b306f03
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #9)
> Part of the problem here is that the gimple expansion does not see the
> argument unpacking or understand how the parameters are passed; so this is
> only exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
Bug ID: 104379
Summary: [p/10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow warning given three
times
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.4.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78147
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tillmann Karras from comment #5)
> This warning is useful, but as was pointed out in comment #2, it currently
> triggers three times for each parameter.
That's a separate issue, now reported a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104366
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #9)
> > Part of the problem here is that the gimple expansion does not see the
> > argument unpacking or understand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104380
Bug ID: 104380
Summary: -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE -mabi=ieeelongdouble -std=c*
wrong-code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104380
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104380
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102330
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I suspect we warn once for each CTOR clone, whilst with checking
DECL_FROM_INLINE
we excluded all but the master clone. "from inline" is of course misleading
here. I suppose the same issue might happen wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102330
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you need to mark some var as addressable during omp lowering, then you need
to treat it similarly to the task shared case, so during scan phase of that
pass
do something like:
/* Taking addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I suppose the same issue might happen with templates where we'd warn
> once per instantiation?
Yes indeed. Once for the primary template, and then again for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102330
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course exceptions would be vars that certainly don't appear in the IL yet,
what I wrote about are vars that may appear there already.
Generally, vars should be marked as addressable before gimplification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So you can imagine what happens if you combine constructor clones with
templates! :-D
template
struct S
{
int i;
S(int i) { (void) i; }
};
S i(1);
S j(1);
whe!
shad2.C: In constructor ‘S::S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104377
--- Comment #1 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Feng Xue from comment #0)
> For function create_specialized_node(), the "node" to operated on seems
> always to be an original cgraph node, never a clone node. From call graph
> related to the functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But no, I don't remember any case from SPEC where it makes a difference
> in the end. Judging from the amount of duplicates we get around
> parameter / return issues people do run into this.
Yes, but I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Even if the performance impact is low, it does matter when optimizing for size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw ---
And there are also cases where we end up with dead stack slots which can't be
removed, so there's a stack size impact as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381
Bug ID: 104381
Summary: [12 Regression] -gtoggle no longer applied when using
optimize attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Err, it's worse(?)
> ./xgcc -B. t.c -O2 -fdump-tree-optimized -c
;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1979, cgraph_uid=1,
symbol_order=0)
int foo (int x)
{
[local count: 1073741824]:
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104382
Bug ID: 104382
Summary: Finalization of parent components not compliant with
standard
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Even if the performance impact is low, it does matter when optimizing for
> size.
Worth addressing for sure, but IMO not at expense of exposing calling
conventions and other low-level stuff in GIMPLE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103006
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
There's an interesting case,
a = BIRTH
loop:
b = DEATH
a = DEATH
b = BIRTH
goto loop;
where we end up having both a and b in the live-in set at the loop label
but a is removed before we see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> So you can imagine what happens if you com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, btw - we'd also warn N times for an uninitialized variable use for example
unless the location-based diagnostic suppression gets this right now - tree or
GIMPLE no-warning flags definitely don't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #40 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0898049ad9bf6c46e510b18aaafca4946802749f
commit r12-7052-g0898049ad9bf6c46e510b18aaafca4946802749f
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #45 from Andrew Macleod ---
>
> That said, range-ops, from say
>
> [0,1] = [0,2] / y;
>
> may _not_ reason that 'y' is not 0 when non-call EH. That is, you need to be
> careful on the reverse ops but I think not on the forward
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104383
Bug ID: 104383
Summary: User-defined conversion is preferred over standard-one
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104383
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99273
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103642
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80951
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=69778
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101783
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90816
Thomas De Schampheleire changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrickdepinguin at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90809
Thomas De Schampheleire changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrickdepinguin at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104384
Bug ID: 104384
Summary: Heap corruption when initializing struct with co_await
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #18 from Sebastian Huber ---
clang 11 produces this code for the attached test case:
clang -O2 -S -o - pr50883.c -target arm
clang-11.0: warning: unknown platform, assuming -mfloat-abi=soft
clang-11.0: warning: unknown platform, ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #46 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I meant something like:
> with System.Unsigned_Types; use System.Unsigned_Types;
>
> function F (X, Y : Unsigned) return Unsigned is
> Z : Unsigned;
> begin
> if X >=2 then
> return 0;
> end if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385
Bug ID: 104385
Summary: Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101081
Joel Teichroeb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at teichroeb dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356
--- Comment #47 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f722e35ab3805de6eeace770508a9085944e93e
commit r12-7058-g1f722e35ab3805de6eeace770508a9085944e93e
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104380
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d6fffc4bcd4afa0beb0efad4f3b95394aa15618
commit r12-7059-g8d6fffc4bcd4afa0beb0efad4f3b95394aa15618
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104380
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104386
Bug ID: 104386
Summary: no_unique_address causes invalid member alignment of
pod struct
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104387
Bug ID: 104387
Summary: aarch64: Redundant SXTH for “bag of bits” moves
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103828
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
I'm not sure if it really counts as an ABI change, given that I know no
existing target where this resulted in an actual change in the argument passing
convention. (i.e., where that test actually f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104388
Bug ID: 104388
Summary: Request: A builtin to mark an object as invalid
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
Bug ID: 104389
Summary: HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a0fab4bddce549380b2713a910127332a091e19
commit r11-9539-g7a0fab4bddce549380b2713a910127332a091e19
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:837ad03ad4a95629a0d17108f5258568bebbf13f
commit r10-10437-g837ad03ad4a95629a0d17108f5258568bebbf13f
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2953e3d1b9b36b441f5a33d696760ed56742ee1e
commit r9-9939-g2953e3d1b9b36b441f5a33d696760ed56742ee1e
Author: Harald Anlauf
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371
--- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier ---
Although I agree the pattern doesn't seem that useful at first, I've seen it
crop up in several places, such as:
- in pixman: https://github.com/servo/pixman/blob/master/pixman/pixman-sse2.c
on line 181
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Changing it to
double
foo (void)
{
double a = __builtin_huge_val ();
return a * 0.0;
}
shows ccp1 applies
/* Maybe fold x * 0 to 0. The expressions aren't the same
when x is NaN, since x * 0 is also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, of course it isn't NAN, it is infinity, but +-Inf * 0 is still NAN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104390
Bug ID: 104390
Summary: Tree check ICE for valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cb748a31cd8c7ac9c88b6abc38ce077dd462a7a
commit r12-7060-g8cb748a31cd8c7ac9c88b6abc38ce077dd462a7a
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #28 from Dan Horák ---
comment #27 matches our experience in Fedora, still a build issue in Eigen with
gcc12 and LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.0
Known to work|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391
Bug ID: 104391
Summary: Gfortran 9 regression with bind(C) and allocatable or
pointer attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392
Bug ID: 104392
Summary: Unexpected Narrowing Warning when spaceship comparison
of unsigned bit field
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
