https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114569
Bug ID: 114569
Summary: GCC accepts forming pointer to function type which is
ref qualified
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114570
Bug ID: 114570
Summary: GCC doesn't perform good loop invariant code motion
for very long vector operations.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114552
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03039744f368a24a452e4ea8d946e9c2cedaf1aa
commit r14-9768-g03039744f368a24a452e4ea8d946e9c2cedaf1aa
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think the last -march option overrides the previous one(s).
I'd say the test should use an effective-target which checks that linking is
actually OK rather than just a compile OK test. Not sure if an ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #20 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #19)
Needless to say I still disagree, but I interpreted your comment #17 as
suggesting this aspect of the discussion is neither necessary nor useful for
this bug, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114533
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8455d6f6cd43b7b143ab9ee19437452fceba9cc9
commit r14-9769-g8455d6f6cd43b7b143ab9ee19437452fceba9cc9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57856&action=edit
quick skip-list patch
Before:
> /usr/bin/time ./cc1plus -quiet -o /dev/null /tmp/a-test-poly.ii -O
173.29use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
Bug ID: 114571
Summary: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant does not complain
about NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
--- Comment #1 from Pierre Ossman ---
Hmm.. I found bug 77513, and r9-873. So I guess this is intentional?
This makes the warning somewhat pointless. We want to make sure developers
standardise on nullptr, both for style and since the behaviour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57858
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57858&action=edit
better release_pages
Ah, and it's not so much fragmentation but large free_unit (1MB) that's hard
to get to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114572
Bug ID: 114572
Summary: [OpenMP] "internal compiler error: in assign_temp"
with assignment operator and lastprivate clause
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114563
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I'd say for the sake of avoiding virtual memory fragmentation free_unit
should be equal to GGC_QUIRE_SIZE. But we should possibly merge adjacent
entries we don't free to power-of-two chunks and possib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Changing from compile-only to link test is as simple as changing "object" to
"executable" in
[check_no_compiler_messages_nocache arm_neon_ok object ...]
.
However, ... this pattern of checking for ARM arch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114573
Bug ID: 114573
Summary: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant complains on enum with
explicit cast
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
I'm wondering whether you missed check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link and
friends?
Maybe check_effective_target_arm_arch_v7a_neon_link would work here, but it
does not use the exact same flags.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111966
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2460d621efe740bd95ad41afef6d806ec1bd9c7
commit r14-9770-gb2460d621efe740bd95ad41afef6d806ec1bd9c7
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114367
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8d71b19f0b1e28fd6d413a6874ec55c568865b0
commit r13-8568-gd8d71b19f0b1e28fd6d413a6874ec55c568865b0
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114401
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:47ebdbe5bf71d9eb260359b6aceb5cb071d97acd
commit r13-8570-g47ebdbe5bf71d9eb260359b6aceb5cb071d97acd
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113841
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:87ec5b369eed205dfe6802afaaec3986b246ade9
commit r13-8569-g87ec5b369eed205dfe6802afaaec3986b246ade9
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104606
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f65d8267fbfd19cf21a3dc71d27e989e75044a3
commit r14-9771-g7f65d8267fbfd19cf21a3dc71d27e989e75044a3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101523
--- Comment #53 from Richard Biener ---
So just to recap, with reverting the change and instead doing
diff --git a/gcc/combine.cc b/gcc/combine.cc
index a4479f8d836..ff25752cac4 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.cc
+++ b/gcc/combine.cc
@@ -4186,6 +4186,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113682
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> This might be the path splitting running on the gimple level causing issues
> too; see PR 112402 .
Ah that's a good shout. It looks like Richi already agrees
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #76 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
It's because the sanitizer runtime was copied from LLVM to GCC. I will post a
patch removing the unsupported MSan and DFSan from the error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114555
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 57860
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57860&action=edit
another testcase, failing with -O -fno-tree-forwprop
Compiler output:
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O -fno-tree-fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114572
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
--- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman ---
Found another case that neither gcc 5, gcc 13, nor clang complain about for
some odd reason:
> assert(thing == NULL);
All three complain about:
> assert(thing == 0);
Not sure what's going on here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114573
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114570
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, clang is quite quick with -O0 (8s, 1GB ram) but with -O1 uses 18GB ram and
8 minutes compile-time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113867
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54254
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> *** Bug 56755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
symbol from this one was _GLOBAL__sub_I__ZN4AMOS12ContigEdge_t5NCODEE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114476
--- Comment #8 from Robin Dapp ---
I tried some things (for the related bug without -fwrapv) then got busy with
some other things. I'm going to have another look later this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59518
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54254
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> *** Bug 90039 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Symbol for this one was _GLOBAL__sub_I__Z11print_tracev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71482
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114551
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
-ssp --disable-fixincludes --with-build-config='bootstrap-O3
bootstrap-lto'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240403 (experimental)
8455d6f6cd43b7b143ab9ee19437452fceba9cc9 (Gentoo 14.0. p, commit
7bbfb01a32b73842f8908de028703510a0e12057)
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114568
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Looking at this problem more, I think the issue is due to ARM target trying
hard to avoid UNSUPPORTED tests, instead of embracing them.
For the vectorization NEON check we have ...
===
proc check_effective
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
reducing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113956
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Reduced:
```
struct X509_algor_st sk_X509_ALGOR_copyfunc(const struct X509_algor_st *);
struct X509_algor_st {
} PKCS8_pkey_get0(const struct X509_algor_st **) {
}
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114573
--- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman ---
Indeed. It is part of an effort to have a more modern C++ style in TigerVNC.
One item was preferring nullptr over NULL, and this issue became an obstacle
there.
Right now, we did a #pragma, but if there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114555
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111966
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cab32bacaea268ec062b1fb4fc662d90c9d1cfce
commit r14-9775-gcab32bacaea268ec062b1fb4fc662d90c9d1cfce
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Feb 26 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114115
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Fixed for GCC 14 so far
It is simple patch, so backporting is OK after a week in mainline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[14 regression] I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114571
--- Comment #3 from Pierre Ossman ---
And another odd case; gcc 5 complains about this:
> const char *a;
> a = NULL;
but not:
> const char *a = NULL;
gcc 13 complains about neither, and clang about both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114569
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] wrong|[13 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68057560ff1fc0fb2df38c2f9627a20c9a8da5c5
commit r13-8571-g68057560ff1fc0fb2df38c2f9627a20c9a8da5c5
Author: Francois-Xavie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #25 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e95ab9e60ce1d9aa7751d79291133fd5af9209d7
commit r13-8572-ge95ab9e60ce1d9aa7751d79291133fd5af9209d7
Author: Francois-Xavie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111632
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
NOTE: I adjusted the PR lines in the commit header so that the commits get
reflected on the PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112297
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44514fde12e2a8f75fca88fdd6ff7a0e678ac966
commit r13-8573-g44514fde12e2a8f75fca88fdd6ff7a0e678ac966
Author: Francois-Xavier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112397
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae11f0154116f4e5fa8769b1ea1600b1b1c22958
commit r13-8577-gae11f0154116f4e5fa8769b1ea1600b1b1c22958
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114537
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114569
--- Comment #2 from Jason Liam ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> So the code should compile.
But https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4950/dcl.ptr#4.sentence-2 says:
> [Note 1: [...] Forming a function pointer type is ill-forme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114575
Bug ID: 114575
Summary: [14 Regression] SVE addressing modes broken since
g:839bc42772ba7af66af3bd16efed4a69511312ae
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114515
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114247
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
struct S foo (const struct S *);
struct S {};
struct S bar (const struct S **) {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, return stmt missing:
struct S foo (const struct S *);
struct S {};
struct S bar (const struct S **) { return (struct S) {}; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #31 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #29)
> Looking back at this one, I (In reply to Wilco from comment #8)
> > Here is a much simpler example:
> >
> > void f (int *p, int y)
> > {
> > int a = y & 14;
> > *p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114510
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> BTW, with additional -mno-red-zone there is still movement of these insns,
>
The problem is even bigger. Live range splitting uses a standard insn
dependen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 114570, which changed state.
Bug 114570 Summary: GCC doesn't perform good loop invariant code motion for
very long vector operations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114570
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 100745, which changed state.
Bug 100745 Summary: GCC generates suboptimal assembly from vector extensions on
AArch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100745
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ajidala at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-03
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93672
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I saw a proposal for C23 (I think it was C23) for arbitrary bit size
> integers. I don't know if that included big integers either.
It does and _BitInt(128) is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114576
Bug ID: 114576
Summary: [13 regression][config/i386] GCC 14/trunk emits
VEX-prefixed AES instruction without AVX enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 |[14
|regression][conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93672
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
On second thoughts, I don't think that fix is right.
istream::ignore takes an int_type for the delimiter, so passing it a char_type
with a negative value will confuse it. For example, str.ignore(n, '\xff`)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
Nicolas Boulenguez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas at debian dot org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Hello.
The attached suggestions (based on gcc-13/13.2.0) might solve the current
issue, or at least simplify the investigation, but they are so intrusive that I
would like a quick review by experts bef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #8 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Created attachment 57866
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57866&action=edit
Ada: drop unneeded x32 variant of System.Linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Created attachment 57867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57867&action=edit
Ada: drop unneeded posix2008 variant of System.Parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Created attachment 57868
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57868&action=edit
Ada: drop unneeded darwin, solaris, x32 variants of System.OS_Primitives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #11 from Nicolas Boulenguez ---
Created attachment 57869
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57869&action=edit
Ada: import nanosleep from System.OS_Primitives.Timed_Delay
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574
--- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hm, this is enough:
const struct S * x;
struct S {};
void f(const struct S **);
The TYPE_CANONICAL of the pointer type depends on TYPE_CANONICAL of the target.
So it seems if I set it for comple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
Bug 87477 depends on bug 113363, which changed state.
Bug 113363 Summary: ICE on ASSOCIATE and unlimited polymorphic function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113363
What|Removed |Added
-
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
