https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
We're not checking for an optab here (that's on purpose IIRC). The code using
the niter analysis result is responsible to do cost checking. The builtin
is recognized via number_of_iterations_popcount.
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102301
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3690
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.3|11.4
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105255
Bug ID: 105255
Summary: Narrowing conversion from enumerator to integer not
detected
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm not sure that's a general enough fix though since we seem to drop
> the REG_EQUAL note and as soon as we do that there's a disconnect
> between what CFG generation thinks throws and what combine think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
>
> --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > I'm not sure that's a general enou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
Kamil Dudka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105252
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104912
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac8340ee4d1e65f3fd41c547b16895875f4aefa7
commit r12-8132-gac8340ee4d1e65f3fd41c547b16895875f4aefa7
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105250
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e892de6774f86540d36385701aa7b0a2bba5155
commit r12-8134-g4e892de6774f86540d36385701aa7b0a2bba5155
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105250
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105140
Bug 105140 depends on bug 105250, which changed state.
Bug 105250 Summary: ICE: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2581 with
conflicting function redeclaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105250
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105254
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
Bug ID: 105256
Summary: ICE compiling firefox-99
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104912
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8)
> The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac8340ee4d1e65f3fd41c547b16895875f4aefa7
>
> commit r12-8132-gac8340ee4d1e65f3f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105254
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Bisection would be difficult as it's closely related to -mcpu=demeter. Is there
any other CPU that triggers that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105238
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> I am happy to test the patch, but not quite sure how to proceed.
I would recommend building the current master (or you can wait for a couple of
weeks and apply it on the top of GCC 12.1 release that will h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105234
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41f8f8b8a4ffcf28961cdc077fd7f0770f4bb7cc
commit r12-8135-g41f8f8b8a4ffcf28961cdc077fd7f0770f4bb7cc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:522f25e90c781d284f8347a04940db8b41c42fd5
commit r12-8136-g522f25e90c781d284f8347a04940db8b41c42fd5
Author: Hongyu Wang
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105257
Bug ID: 105257
Summary: [8/9/10/11/12 regression] ICE in final_scan_insn_1, at
final.cc:2811
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105257
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105246
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Stubbs ---
When we first coded this we only had the GCN3 ISA manual, which says nothing
about the accuracy.
Now I look in the Vega manual (GCN5) I see:
Square root with perhaps not the accuracy you were hoping for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105234
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105258
Bug ID: 105258
Summary: std::get_temporary_buffer() does not respect alignment
(affects std::stable_sort())
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105259
Bug ID: 105259
Summary: gcc.target/i386/auto-init-4.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105259
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105255
--- Comment #1 from Giovanni Cerretani ---
I attach also a more comprehensive test that also checks conversions from
integer to enumeration types (https://godbolt.org/z/jbe76E3c1). The behavior of
direct-list-initialization has changed on C++17,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105259
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9645279722233bb779cc6eca02687a732d4834e5
commit r12-8137-g9645279722233bb779cc6eca02687a732d4834e5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105254
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
I tried to replace -mcpu w/ individual options reported by -Q --help=target and
failed. But yes, -mcpu=zeus also works and reveals that it is likely [12
Regression].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Note, there is some code to not do this if we'd not expand the builtin inline
> since r9-4030-g06a6b46a16f9287a98aa , so I wonder what changed.
That only appli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced to just -O2:
int
foo (unsigned long long *p)
{
int i, cnt = 0;
unsigned long long elem;
for (i = 0; i < (256 / 64); i++)
{
elem = p[i];
for (; elem; cnt++)
elem &= elem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, I see, expression_expensive_p is called, but number_of_iterations_popcount
when creating a CALL_EXPR only cares about TYPE_PRECISION and happily creates
__builtin_popcountl with unsigned long long argume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
Bug ID: 105260
Summary: Union with user-defined empty destructor leads to
worse code-gen
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is a regression (as in we don't want such a call in that case for
performance reasons and in the past we didn't emit it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Options to reproduce on arm-none-eabi:
-O3 -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfpu=neon-fp16 -mfloat-abi=hard -o - vect.c -S
-fdump-tree-all-details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93602
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I confirmed that --without-libiconv-prefix doesn't work. With GNU libiconv
installed as /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.2 it breaks the compiler:
/gccobj/./gcc/xgcc -B/gccobj/./gcc/ -dumpspecs > tmp-specs
/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105247
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that the ia64 backend for some strange reason uses DImode for
the
shift last operands, while e.g. in GIMPLE they are converted to
integer_type_node or so:
/* Why oh why didn't Intel arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
Dvir Yitzchaki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvirtz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105242
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Why do you say accepts invalid for C/C++?
void
foo (int i1, int i2, int j1, int j2, int k1, int k2)
{
int k = 1;
#pragma omp target parallel for simd collapse(3) firstprivate (k)
for (int ii = i1; ii <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105261
Bug ID: 105261
Summary: schedule-insns2 and ipa-sra make alive constant
variables not available
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105258
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The simplest solution would be to just use std::allocator which already does
the right thing, but that would break if there is a program-defined
specialization of std::allocator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105219
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
This is likely because of a similar issue as PR103941 and related to pattern
recognition. We're trying to be more precise now but with patterns there are
still issues and we are now erroring on the "safe"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #7)
> Options to reproduce on arm-none-eabi:
>
> -O3 -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfpu=neon-fp16 -mfloat-abi=hard -o - vect.c -S
> -fdump-tree-all-details
Can you create a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105262
Bug ID: 105262
Summary: Consider adding
std::__new_allocator::allocate(size_type, nothrow_t)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
The testcases from PR103941 are also fixed - I fear this might cause quite some
extra BB vectorization, so not sure if it is good to do right now. OTOH it's
probably the last chance to get benchmark cover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Well, it simply looks like the calling conventions for dummyFunc are different
with the ABI in effect depending on the PODness(?), and the code is as
optimized as it can be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
That said, 'auto& arg' might just hide the interesting bit but my C++ fu is too
weak to see how un.value would differ.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
--- Comment #4 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
I dont think ABI is an issue here. The Foo variable is spilled into stack, and
then reloaded back into RDI register before invoking dummyFunc.
Also clang generates optimal code as can be seen her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
Bug ID: 105263
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: gimple check: expected
gimple_assign(error_mark), have gimple_nop() in
gimple_assign_rhs1, at gimple.h:2655 with _Decimal64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
I've slighlty refactored the code, to remove the auto variables. This issue
remains
#include
inline unsigned deserializeUInt(const unsigned char* &in)
{
unsigned out;
__builtin_memcpy(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Ah, I see, expression_expensive_p is called, but
> number_of_iterations_popcount when creating a CALL_EXPR only cares about
> TYPE_PRECISION and happily create
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
--- Comment #6 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Furthermore in all the scenarios the same function is called, with same
arguments, so the calling convention/ABI is same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Created attachment 52796 [details]
> gcc12-pr105253.patch
>
> Now in (untested) patch form.
> Note, the kernel still should provide __popcount[sd]i2, but in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
i3 is not always the sole instruction that results from the combine: if a
single insn does not work, two are tried, and one of them is placed at i2.
It's something to consider, it has to be checked for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97296
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85ae54e18b9a3cbe4feda921ecd77cf275177edf
commit r12-8138-g85ae54e18b9a3cbe4feda921ecd77cf275177edf
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-13
Summary|[9/10/11/1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed.
5336 /* Recurse on the LHS of the binary operator, which is guaranteed to
5337 be the non-leaf side. */
5338 tree new_rhs1
5339= rewrite_expr_tree (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105254
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105231
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Wrt keeping REG_EQUAL notes... If you want to keep them you need to make sure
they still are valid. GCC keeps those on i3, it is much too hard in general to
validate other such notes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97296
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] g++ |[10/11 Regression] g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105183
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd61ee6fde5fcf1d503b679bb9b5e0a0ba7a515d
commit r12-8139-gdd61ee6fde5fcf1d503b679bb9b5e0a0ba7a515d
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105183
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104010
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
The test in arm/simd/neon-vcmp.c currently fails, and passes with your
candidate patch, thanks.
(I wrote that test before the regression, and noticed it had regressed while
working on my MVE/VCMP patche
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103027
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
Example bug that this warning flag could have found, if the string involved
were a C string: https://twitter.com/nyt_first_said/status/1513148451210637313
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-13
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105261
--- Comment #1 from Cristian Assaiante ---
The gdb bug report can be found at:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29060
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105233
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:13c32c1984f5857ccce2aeb00ce34343e5a26954
commit r12-8140-g13c32c1984f5857ccce2aeb00ce34343e5a26954
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29c46490de4616b911fccb34a9479f768fb51e94
commit r12-8141-g29c46490de4616b911fccb34a9479f768fb51e94
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105233
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk, I'd wait some time before considering to backport this, so
not going to be in 11.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105219
--- Comment #10 from Tamar Christina ---
nb_iterations_upper_bound is indeed set incorrectly and tracked to this commit,
commit 7ed1cd9665d8ca0fa07b2483e604c25e704584af
Author: Andre Vieira
Date: Thu Jun 3 13:55:24 2021 +0100
vect: Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
Bug ID: 105264
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value gets confused
about var + i v.s. &var[i]
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca145c6306f19272ac8756d88c4eba0bfdf01dfb
commit r12-8142-gca145c6306f19272ac8756d88c4eba0bfdf01dfb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Bug ID: 105265
Summary: temporary object not destructed causing memory leaks
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #1 from jack ---
#include
using namespace std;
class Block
{
public:
Block(int n) : data{new char[n]}, size{n}
{
cout << "Block ctor\n";
}
~Block()
{
cout << "Block dtor\n";
delete[] da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100111
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
commit r12-8144-gec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105245
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
commit r12-8144-gec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #2 from jack ---
Additional info: g++8.4 and clang++ 3.8 have no such issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Should we revert the backport for 11.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93602
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #12)
> Should we revert the backport for 11.3?
I think that will regress other tests (but admit I did not have time to try
it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #12)
> > Should we revert the backport for 11.3?
>
> I think that will regress other tests (but admit I did not have time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #49 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> Anyway, I'm out of ideas and unfortunately Solaris/x86 is not on GCCFarm.
I'd meant to provide a Solaris/x86 system for the cfarm, but it turned
out every user would have to sign an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105217
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
