https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114249
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=114108
--- Comment #9 from Tejas Belagod ---
This seems to be the issue:
... VECITYPE is the vector form of PATTERN_STMT's result type. */
static gimple *
vect_convert_output (vec_info *vinfo, stmt_vec_info stmt_info, tree type,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114250
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114249
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 114250 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #13 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> > > Any update? :)
> >
> > Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114190
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1157d5de35b41eabe5ee51d532224864173c37bd
commit r14-9329-g1157d5de35b41eabe5ee51d532224864173c37bd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114232
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #57614|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114251
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #14 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #13)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> > > > Any update? :)
> > >
> > > W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114241
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
This indeed looks like bug caused by fact that the class is keyed into
one of the two units.
Outputting translation unit names is unfortunately hard, since they are
object files and often comming from .a arch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114241
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114246
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0249744a9fe0775c2c895727aeebec4c59fd5f95
commit r14-9330-g0249744a9fe0775c2c895727aeebec4c59fd5f95
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114249
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a910114fdb2aa76495c4c748acf6b9c7fbecc89
commit r14-9331-g3a910114fdb2aa76495c4c748acf6b9c7fbecc89
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114249
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114246
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Asan, most of the checking flags, fortran and the -march setting not required.
Current configure script is:
../trunk.20210101/configure \
--disable-multilib \
--disable-werror \
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #20 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Thanks, I'd be very happy if such a relatively clear implementation could make
it!
> branchfree code is always better.
Don't say it like that. Smart branching, making use of how static
branch-predic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113629
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49d83e963aa453600088380aebd507e172eb80ad
commit r14-9332-g49d83e963aa453600088380aebd507e172eb80ad
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113629
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113428
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
The referenced patch added the test that is failing. How is that a regression?
Or are you suggesting that the test works without the rest of the patch
applied?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
Bug ID: 114252
Summary: Introducing bswapsi reduces code performance
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113428
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
/* { dg-warning {cast to pointer from integer of different size} "" { target
*-*-* } .-2 } */
I'm guessing it's this that's causing the problem because int and int* are the
same size on 32-bit targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110775
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Perhaps we could use
#define abort __builtin_trap
?
A quick check seems to suggest this will work ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100523
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114253
Bug ID: 114253
Summary: False positive maybe-uninitialized with std::optional
and ternary
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114253
--- Comment #1 from Frank Overdijk ---
Created attachment 57629
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57629&action=edit
Preprocessed minimum working example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114253
--- Comment #2 from Frank Overdijk ---
Created attachment 57630
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57630&action=edit
Verbose compiler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
The problem with expmed.c happens with -O2 -march=znver3,
so it's more prevalent than I thought.
The problem with poly-int.h seems to require -O3.
So they look like two separate problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114251
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 57631
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57631&action=edit
reduced.i
Attached what cvise spat out, but Zdenek's is far smaller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Looking at avr.md there's no bswap implementation, only the libcall. Why
expose it this way?
I suppose the pattern was added to get bswap recognition, so this is what you
get if you do that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114249
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 114251 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114239
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:89c443a7e9a0780a52a698fb02d4f5173e025918
commit r14-9335-g89c443a7e9a0780a52a698fb02d4f5173e025918
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114234
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> but somehow we end up doing a libcall?
It's not a libcall in the GCC sense, for the compiler it's just an ordinary
insn. The backend then prints this as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #19)
> * You were probably wondering why I wrote "if (std::isinf(x) | std::isinf(y)
> | std::isinf(z))", for example. This is intentional. The problem is that gcc
> al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114200
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp ---
Took me a while to analyze this... needed more time than I'd like to admit to
make sense of the somewhat weird code created by fully unrolling and peeling.
I believe the problem is that we reload the output re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113331
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2024-02-20 00:00:00 |2024-3-6
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Testcase for the first compile time UB (-O3):
long long a, b, c;
void
foo (long long e)
{
long long d = a & 9223372036854775808ULL;
c = b;
if (d && e)
c = c | d;
}
Testcase for the second compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dimitry Andric from comment #10)
> Note there are other issues with poisoned identifiers, so I'll ask again: is
> a non-bootstrapped build even supposed to work, and officially supported, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The same function already does
offset += pop->off * BITS_PER_UNIT;
a few lines earlier, so I think doing it here is fine as well.
Or yet another option is to cast pop->off or op->off to offset_int first and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113580
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||huscar at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106951
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 106951, which changed state.
Bug 106951 Summary: [modules] Segmentation fault during compilation while using
modules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106951
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106851
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I tried doing it this way instead
namespace std {
export using std::vector;
namespace pmr {
export using std::vector;
}
}
but that didn't work, nothing got exported. But maybe that will be fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #50 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
the 6th version of the patch sets targeted on GCC15 has been submitted to GCC
alias for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/645838.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114195
--- Comment #1 from Li Pan ---
Confirmed with
1. build option '-march=rv64gcv -O3'.
2. riscv64-unknown-elf-gcc (GCC) 14.0.1 20240306 (experimental).
If no one works on this ICE already, will take a look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110323
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114151
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #9)
> > > Created attachment 57620 [details]
> > > proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105533
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57632
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57632&action=edit
gcc14-pr105533.patch
Untested fix for the other issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112834
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 112834, which changed state.
Bug 112834 Summary: Class array function selector causes chain of syntax and
other spurious errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112834
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113428
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-03-06 5:06 a.m., rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I'm guessing it's this that's causing the problem because int and int* are the
> same size on 32-bit targets. So would changing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114254
Bug ID: 114254
Summary: Indirect inlining through C++ member pointers fails if
the underlying class has a virtual function
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114196
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> So bswap on a value is just register shuffling, right?
The point is that there is no need for bswap in the first place, just have a
look at the code that v1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114245
--- Comment #3 from Max Enrico Winkler ---
> Yes this sounds like you are runing into what I have described as being
> undefined behavior.
Understood and agreed.
However this specific example is an object that effectively does no work on
dest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114245
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114245
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 110328, which changed state.
Bug 110328 Summary: Module related optimization is too aggressive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110328
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110328
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114255
Bug ID: 114255
Summary: [RISC-V] unable to find a register to spill
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114256
Bug ID: 114256
Summary: std::filebuf::setbuf does nothing if the file is open
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112640
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113059
--- Comment #28 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #27)
> Can someone sanity-check me on this by trying the instructions at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114079#c0?
>
> I think I can still hit the original c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110199
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Just looking at the generated code of #c0 with -O2 on x86_64, this regressed
> with
> r13-3596-ge7310e24b1c0ca67b1bb507c1330b2bf39e59e32
> Andrew, are you going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110861
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 110861, which changed state.
Bug 110861 Summary: Bad codegen leading to runtime segfault when mixing import
and #include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110861
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc6c3bfb59baab28b998e18396c06087b6d9b0ed
commit r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab28b998e18396c06087b6d9b0ed
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 110861, which changed state.
Bug 110861 Summary: Bad codegen leading to runtime segfault when mixing import
and #include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110861
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114114
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 110861, which changed state.
Bug 110861 Summary: Bad codegen leading to runtime segfault when mixing import
and #include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110861
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227
Bug 99227 depends on bug 99244, which changed state.
Bug 99244 Summary: [modules] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16581
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99244
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99244
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 99244, which changed state.
Bug 99244 Summary: [modules] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16581
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99244
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114257
Bug ID: 114257
Summary: Error when 'this' is used in a lambda with an explicit
object parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103707
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e1d4d24ed014387da97e2ce11556d68fe98e66
commit r14-9340-g93e1d4d24ed014387da97e2ce11556d68fe98e66
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e1d4d24ed014387da97e2ce11556d68fe98e66
commit r14-9340-g93e1d4d24ed014387da97e2ce11556d68fe98e66
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113001
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10cbfcd60f9e5bdbe486e1c0192e0f168d899b77
commit r14-9341-g10cbfcd60f9e5bdbe486e1c0192e0f168d899b77
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 6 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112871
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10cbfcd60f9e5bdbe486e1c0192e0f168d899b77
commit r14-9341-g10cbfcd60f9e5bdbe486e1c0192e0f168d899b77
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Wed Mar 6 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113001
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 06.03.2024 um 17:12 schrieb gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
>
> --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113428
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Patch here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647294.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113915
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b575f37a342cebb954aa85fa45df0604bfa1ada9
commit r14-9343-gb575f37a342cebb954aa85fa45df0604bfa1ada9
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114258
Bug ID: 114258
Summary: repeat store operation when copying a union
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113915
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99569
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110730
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryan.burn at gmail dot com
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
