https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106055
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d74d98784a9d0101aad8095d692193a74a2f62f6
commit r13-1419-gd74d98784a9d0101aad8095d692193a74a2f62f6
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106055
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106177
Bug ID: 106177
Summary: LTO interoperability Linux/Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #15 from Chris Clayton ---
On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106177
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There might be another bug which talks about host compatibility for the lto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106003
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-09-01 19:29:58 |2022-7-4
--- Comment #10 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106178
Bug ID: 106178
Summary: [13 Regression] Rejected code with "is private within
this context" since r13-1390-g07ac550393d00fca
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106178
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105858
--- Comment #1 from Brecht Sanders
---
Any news on this?
I am not the only one experiencing this.
See also: https://github.com/brechtsanders/winlibs_mingw/issues/108
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41526
--- Comment #11 from Richard Weickelt ---
I would prefer a warning over an error. Cross-compiling for arm-none-eabi does
work unless floating point arithmetic is involved as reported in bug 105641,
but I understand that this might be a special ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106177
Richard Weickelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard at weickelt dot de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #16 from Chris Clayton ---
I've tried two further build of gcc-13 using gcc-12-20220702.
The gcc-13-20220703 snapshot fails with the same ICEs but the 20220619 snapshot
builds successfully.
So we have 13-20220626 and 13-20220703 bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106177
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Richard Weickelt from comment #3)
> @Christophe Lyon,
>
> my use-case is that vendor A provides a binary blob of a library to vendor
> B. Both A and B ensure that they use the same toolchain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106179
Bug ID: 106179
Summary: [13 Regression] Rejected code since
r13-1390-g07ac550393d00fca
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106179
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106170
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Another possibility would be to white-list targets that should have a
> thread-safe plugin.
std::atomic is freestanding. so technically adding a spin lock for an
un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106179
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106178
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] ICE in |[13 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
Bug ID: 106180
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791
since 73f942c08deef3cce312263b3347f7a44dd44150
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106134
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106099
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 106134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106099
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Started with r13-1204-gd68d366425369649.
>
> Since -funreachable-traps is a new option, is this a regression then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106156
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106156
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh yes, libatomic is needed to compile atomics for riscv. If we are stage2+
then libatomic target library needs to be in library search path and the lto
plugin needs to be dependent on libatomic in the top l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106156
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106181
Bug ID: 106181
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in capacity_compatible_with_type,
at analyzer/region-model.cc:2909
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106181
Tim Lange changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-04
Assignee|dmalcolm at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106181
--- Comment #1 from Tim Lange ---
Can confirm. I've missed that I might receive non-ints from get_capacity. I'm
working on a fix right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106156
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106126
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
> I checked here and all is in order.
Great, thanks for testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106099
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106090
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> do_it() is indeed called 4 times,but I wonder how the coverage statistiscs
> of the for-statement is calculated. It doesn't become 5 untill the
> for-stamentment is completed.
We count a line every time th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106170
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106099
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And there is another thing, we need to check all these
gimple_build_builtin_unreachable and builtin_decl_unreachable and
build_builtin_unreachable calls and check if any of them aren't done during IPA
with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71108
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106181
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106179
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106152
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-07-04
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106155
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106090
--- Comment #5 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > do_it() is indeed called 4 times,but I wonder how the coverage statistiscs
> > of the for-statement is calculated. It doesn't become 5 untill the
> > for-stamentmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101618
--- Comment #3 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Yang Wang from comment #2)
> The coverage is correct later version （gcov 11.1.0 and 12.1.0）,is it fixed?
In version 12.1.0
1: 133:static void __attribute__((noinline)) foobar(bitmap_head
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86491
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/597560.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106182
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106182
Bug ID: 106182
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:717 since
r13-1450-gd2a89809452e
Product: gcc
Version: 13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100980
--- Comment #4 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Yang Wang from comment #3)
> The coverage is correct later version （gcov 11.1.0 and 12.1.0）,is it fixed?
In version 12.1.0
-:1:#include
-:2:extern void abort(void);
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100980
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed with r11-3302-g3696a50beeb73f4d.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100980
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101618
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106176
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105991
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c175b3d170de2bb02b7bd45b3348eec05d28451
commit r12-8547-g6c175b3d170de2bb02b7bd45b3348eec05d28451
Author: Roger Sayle
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106090
--- Comment #6 from Yang Wang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > do_it() is indeed called 4 times,but I wonder how the coverage statistiscs
> > of the for-statement is calculated. It doesn't become 5 untill the
> > for-stamentmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106139
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32dfb075ad31413af9086ce546b5f5317a916d34
commit r12-8548-g32dfb075ad31413af9086ce546b5f5317a916d34
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106183
Bug ID: 106183
Summary: std::atomic::wait might deadlock on platforms without
platform_wait()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106184
Bug ID: 106184
Summary: gcc/analyzer/sm-fd.cc:545: ordering problem ?
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106184
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mir at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106003
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106003
--- Comment #5 from Immad Mir ---
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will make the suggested corrections
in a follow-up patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106138
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> So we're seeing
>
> b1_8 = x_7(D) == 4;
> # RANGE [0, 3] NONZERO 3
> _3 = x_7(D) & 3;
> b2_9 = _3 != 0;
> _5 = b1_8 & b2_9;
>
> and fail to optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106185
Bug ID: 106185
Summary: Spurious Wstringop-overflow in std::vector::resize
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #21 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I have a similar issue under Debian/unstable with GCC old of a few months,
where in x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/po, msgfmt fails with an error like
/usr/bin/msgfmt:
/home/vlefevre/software/gcc-build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105860
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b110e5283e368b5377e04766e4ff82cd52634208
commit r13-1460-gb110e5283e368b5377e04766e4ff82cd52634208
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104489
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac4c8f53b0f735be17aa020796602de2299da1c5
commit r13-1462-gac4c8f53b0f735be17aa020796602de2299da1c5
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106186
Bug ID: 106186
Summary: [13 regression] Recent change causing target
regressions for uninitialized objects
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106139
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:488759b7ea16972c4dfbb62926cd71996b1f77a7
commit r11-10109-g488759b7ea16972c4dfbb62926cd71996b1f77a7
Author: Iain Buclaw
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #19)
> I'm curious: Fedora 36 takes probably half an hour to be downloaded and
> installed in a VM/chroot/etc., so you could probably debug the issue in a
> fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
Bug ID: 106187
Summary: armhf: Miscompilation with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #21)
> I suppose that LD_LIBRARY_PATH is set because it is needed in order to use
> built libraries.
It is not needed except when running the testsuite, and shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #24 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #21)
> I have a similar issue under Debian/unstable with GCC old of a few months,
> where in x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/po, msgfmt fails with an error like
>
> /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #25 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
> (In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #19)
> > I'm curious: Fedora 36 takes probably half an hour to be downloaded and
> > installed in a VM/chro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
Ok it seems to be working ok using:
% g++-12 --version
g++-12 (Debian 12.1.0-5) 12.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
g++-10 seems affected:
% g++-10 --version
g++-10 (Debian 10.4.0-1) 10.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
> I can trigger an assertion in highway unit test suite on armhf when using -O2
> (does not happen at -O0).
The above sentence is wrong, I can make the symptoms go away using:
CXXFLAGS=-fsanitize=unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100694
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100694
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Should this not be handled by the subreg passes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106114
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4738cbb02e201c031a2a44d8bc10d3e17d987dc
commit r12-8549-gd4738cbb02e201c031a2a44d8bc10d3e17d987dc
Author: Andrew MacLeo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton ---
I've cloned git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and bisected between 13-20220626
(ff35dbc02092fbcd3d814fcd9fe8e871c3f741fd) and 13-20220619
(4390e7bfbc641a52c6192b448768dafdf4565527) as bad and good respectively.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #18 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53256&action=edit
git bisect log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106186
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Hmmm, this patch shouldn't alter current behavior.
I can't reproduce on current trunk on a cross:
--enable-languages=c --target=cris-sim
abulafia:~/bld/tcris/gcc$ ./cc1 uninit-4.c -O1 -Wuninitialized -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104869
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6a8ac7e92dfe0a51d71525e212147d0b84f1224
commit r11-10110-gd6a8ac7e92dfe0a51d71525e212147d0b84f1224
Author: Richard Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106188
Bug ID: 106188
Summary: [11.3 Regression] [coroutines] Incorrect frame layout
after transforming conditional statement without
top-level bind expression
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106189
Bug ID: 106189
Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE: Floating point exception
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106190
Bug ID: 106190
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in expand_builtin_eh_common, at
except.cc:2084
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106191
Bug ID: 106191
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault signal terminated program
cc1plus
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106192
Bug ID: 106192
Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] ICE in vect_loop_versioning, at
tree-vect-loop-manip.cc:3522
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106193
Bug ID: 106193
Summary: ICE in lookup_sfield, at omp-low.cc:438
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106190
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
URL|https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105626
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Could something like this be added, it seems to have few chances if any to
disrupt any meaningful diagnostic while handling this specific case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104493
--- Comment #4 from Ye Luo ---
When I tried master and devel/omp/gcc-12, the fix has not been applied.
Just keep a note here. Probably this has been planned.
++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 13.0.0 20220704 (experimental) [master r13-1463-gce8dbe7d834] (GCC)
[556] %
[556] % gcctk -O3 small.c
during GIMPLE pass: unswitch
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:3
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
