https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
Bug ID: 105175
Summary: [12 Regression] Pointless warning about missed vector
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105160
peterz at infradead dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peterz at infradead dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #6 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > So that I can decide whether I am allowed to do things totally randomly
> > or if I must follow some sort of seeded determinism.
>
> That is almost always the wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105160
--- Comment #7 from peterz at infradead dot org ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #6)
> Happy accident; I've been wanting to allow doing something like:
>
> static __always_inline __pure bool arch_static_branch(struct static_key *
> const key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there might be a way to check if the option -frandom-seed was passed
and that might be a better option for your usage anyways. You should check the
options handling code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100134
--- Comment #3 from Sandipan Mohanty ---
Created attachment 52759
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52759&action=edit
Preprocessed source generated by gcc
Preprocessed source generated by gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100134
--- Comment #4 from Sandipan Mohanty ---
Comment on attachment 52759
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52759
Preprocessed source generated by gcc
This bug remains unhandled as of 6 April 2022, making it difficult to use
modul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
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=105166
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=105168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103761
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d037d9ad323ec9eef3e50c6e2cbc1e31191daa5d
commit r12-8016-gd037d9ad323ec9eef3e50c6e2cbc1e31191daa5d
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103761
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #9 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> I think there might be a way to check if the option -frandom-seed was passed
> and that might be a better option for your usage anyways. You should check
> the option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71770a0ea920641c53912f725f5abd4413b38fd5
commit r12-8017-g71770a0ea920641c53912f725f5abd4413b38fd5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> Note for shifts the precision of the shift operand does not have to match
> that of the shifted operand. In your case you have vector << scalar, so you
> de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is interesting here is any change will always going to be gcc 13+. So
requiring gcc 4.6+ is not a bad thing.
Gcc 12 does not even compile with gcc 4.7 or before now with the requirement of
c++11. Gcc 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
>
> --- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jakub at redhat dot com|
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jeli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I would expect the vectorizer to only generate vector modes which would fit
into word mode if no hardware vector support is available. E.g. for:
struct {
unsigned a, b, c, d;
} s;
foo() {
s.a &= 42;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105163
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44fe49401725055a740ce47e80561b6932b8cd01
commit r12-8018-g44fe49401725055a740ce47e80561b6932b8cd01
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #12 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> I think kernel requires gcc >= 5.1 anyway.
there's more than one kernel version in active use and under
development/support, even by upstream, not to mention compan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As has been said, we can't retroactively change released compilers from the
last 2 decades. And going forward, I think walking the save_decoded_options is
just fine and reliable, other plugins use that too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #19 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> Sure, if that's what the precision is used for. The message from Andrew
> sounded like 'I want the precision for the shift operand but let me
> just use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103329
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So vectorizable_operation correctly says target_support_p == false and then
goes
on with
target_support_p = (optab_handler (optab, vec_mode)
!= CODE_FOR_nothing);
}
b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105171
--- Comment #14 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> As has been said, we can't retroactively change released compilers from the
> last 2 decades. And going forward, I think walking the save_decoded_options
> is just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105152
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105164
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105168
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE: |[10/11/12 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
And the following works:
g++ 2.ii 1.ii -fpatchable-function-entry=1 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
[local count: 1073741824]:
i.0_1 = i;
_2 = (_Decimal32) i.0_1;
_12 = (_Decimal64) _2;
_13 = (_Decimal64) d_8(D);
_3 = _12 * _13;
_4 = (_Decimal64) c_9(D);
_5 = -_4;
_6 = _3 * _5;
d_10 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #20)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> > We can use the original testcase as the litmus test for basic support if we
> > compile it with
> >
> > -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Confirmed, a bit reduced test-case:
>
> $ cat 1.ii
> struct WinsockInterfaceClass {
> virtual int Get_Protocol() { return 0; }
> } PacketTransport;
>
> $ cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> This doesn't take flag_rounding_math or not always exactly precise floating
> point computations into account.
> It is also missing real_convert after real_arithmetics that performs at least
> some of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99977
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f037a81fcd1ac5d5adddfb204e1c07bdd2bffbbe
commit r9-10006-gf037a81fcd1ac5d5adddfb204e1c07bdd2bffbbe
Author: Alex Coplan
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99977
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105166
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4be08315124281f4e9359bc7e5279a99bdbdd053
commit r12-8019-g4be08315124281f4e9359bc7e5279a99bdbdd053
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105166
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #22)
> > This doesn't take flag_rounding_math or not always exactly precise floating
> > point computations into account.
> > It is also missing real_convert after r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105176
Bug ID: 105176
Summary: -fdce causes a non-dead variable to show as optimized
out when debugging only at -Os/Oz
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105177
Bug ID: 105177
Summary: GCC should warn if pragma redefine_extname fails due
to missing declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It would, but it would also give up quite often.
For VRP we can do better, because we don't have just the options exactly
correct answer or give up, we can have ranges.
So, say for flag_rounding_math, we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] |[12 Regression]
|compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 52760
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52760&action=edit
Test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Outputs from asm goto has been strongly demanded feature from mainly linux
kernel folks.
Allowing all but complex outputs from asm goto would be just weird.
I think if we can't punt on the cplx lowering for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
More to the point the cited rev. doesn't look like it should change anything
for -mtune=generic. Maybe the "generic" config is always the last one on
aarch64 and now "demeter"? At least there doesn't seem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1a5e7562d53a8d2256f754714b06595bea72196
commit r12-8020-ge1a5e7562d53a8d2256f754714b06595bea72196
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105173
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Summary|[10/11/12 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> More to the point the cited rev. doesn't look like it should change anything
> for -mtune=generic. Maybe the "generic" config is always the last one on
> aar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Outputs from asm goto has been strongly dem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105157
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Most of the compile-time is spent in scheduling, so I think the scheduling
model was somehow exchanged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
It's there since the introduction of the option in r8-2176-g417ca0117a1a9a8a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> Anyway, nobody is going to run into this in practice. Maybe
> instead of ICEing we can just sorry from complex lowering ... eh.
For GCC 11/12 that sounds l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> It's there since the introduction of the op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105165
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105169
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, looking at clang++, they utilize G (group) section flags:
_ZN21WinsockInterfaceClass12Get_ProtocolEv: #
@_ZN21WinsockInterfaceClass12Get_ProtocolEv
.Lfunc_begin0:
.cfi_startproc
# %bb.0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105164
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105174
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105178
Bug ID: 105178
Summary: g++ incorrectly reports invalid use of incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Macleod ---
That is correct.
tree op1_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (s));
tree op2_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_rhs2 (s));
tree l = build_int_cst (op2_type, 0);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, though I think we should fix the Fortran FE so that it only relies on [0,
N) . If the shift count is constant, it can deal with it at compile time, if
it is variable, can emit a COND_EXPR for the shift
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178
>
> --- Comment #20 from Andrew Macleod ---
> That is correct.
>
> tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105178
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105179
Bug ID: 105179
Summary: -fcprop-registers shrinks a DWARF location range
making a variable optimized out at -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100608
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd0024e48e94008915a6b18112efbbd8abc81ed8
commit r12-8021-gfd0024e48e94008915a6b18112efbbd8abc81ed8
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105180
Bug ID: 105180
Summary: K&R style definition does not evaluate array size
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104578
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] accepts |[12 Regression][CWG1315]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105143
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=105150
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5df29fe79df659617793f955a1ea6c23a0617fe2
commit r12-8022-g5df29fe79df659617793f955a1ea6c23a0617fe2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104702
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105162
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop ---
The attached patch degrades performance on cpus with LSE: the barrier is not
needed when outline-atomics execute an LSE instruction.
I was thinking to add the barrier to the armv8.0 generic path (no LSE) in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79724
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Hello.
I suggest that Homebrew adopt a solution tested for years by Debian:
* install the executables as TARGET-gcc-VERSION
* add symbolic links if necessary (gcc, gcc-VERSION, TARGET-gcc)
* apply the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105181
Bug ID: 105181
Summary: [optimization] gcc generate worse code than clang base
on neon
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104702
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc76c502a761ddaee215bcbd8fe4720e46d3b9dd
commit r12-8024-gcc76c502a761ddaee215bcbd8fe4720e46d3b9dd
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104702
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105147
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c65d15d40738f3691ff1a39907a4b93e9fe5c5ae
commit r12-8025-gc65d15d40738f3691ff1a39907a4b93e9fe5c5ae
Author: Segher Boessenkool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105147
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105096
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:717b2d4191e80dc8aae3847675de73ed3f611fb7
commit r12-8026-g717b2d4191e80dc8aae3847675de73ed3f611fb7
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105096
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105069
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6283d5ad4779d3e5b7b2a93e76de03264a7c7cc6
commit r12-8027-g6283d5ad4779d3e5b7b2a93e76de03264a7c7cc6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105069
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some of the ICEs are gone, but pr104327.c is still rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105143
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e58484a019c57b1085bbbcc1654f1944feddfe73
commit r12-8028-ge58484a019c57b1085bbbcc1654f1944feddfe73
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105143
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104668
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9fd377a747375a82912bd81c67b275301489785c
commit r12-8029-g9fd377a747375a82912bd81c67b275301489785c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
