https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase which does NOT need -mavx to fail and fails on aarch64 too:
```
#define numwords 2
typedef struct {
unsigned words[numwords];
} Child;
typedef struct {
Child child;
} Parent;
Parent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
MSVC (and EDG) return true for is_default_constructible_v> .
Which is different from clang.
So in summary we have the following 3 behaviors:
* accepts the code and is_default_constructible_v> value is tru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
That feature probably existed since the beginning, as a comment the glibc
sources from 1994 in misc/sys/cdefs.h suggests.
/* In GCC versions before 2.5, the `volatile' and `const' keywords have
special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769
--- Comment #4 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hi, thanks for investigating.
That divergence is a bit worrying, I can't quite understand what's going on.
Also, all compilers seem to accept this variation, which one would naively
assume "equivalent"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
I'm hearing this came up at Cauldron this year... I wasn't there, so could
somebody who was summarize in this bug report for us?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And I'm not saying *you* should use unsigned types, I'm saying std::format
should cast it to unsigned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116754
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
The easiest fix is to add:
&& !generic_expr_could_trap_p (@3)
There but I am not sure if that will always work even though
generic_expr_could_trap_p is recusive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116773
Bug ID: 116773
Summary: [meta-bug] TSVC missed optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug, missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116766
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I had saw this one before ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (_p0)) goto next_after_fail964;
if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (_p1)) goto next_after_fail964;
if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (_p2)) goto next_after_fail964;
We check for SIDE_EFFECTS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59143
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59143&action=edit
Better reduced testcase
Here is a better reduced testcase.
The problem only shows up with these 2 patterns be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am wondering if genmatch should generate the call to
generic_expr_could_trap_p rather than adding it to the pattern because there
could be more issues like this learking around.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
--- Comment #15 from Sam James ---
Note that the original still fails on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #21 from Marek Polacek ---
Sigh, the DR 2116 in the title confused me...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Zartaj Majeed from comment #9)
> Won't I have to separately add units to +d2.count()?
No, I'm saying that the operator<< for duration should use +d.count() instead
of d.count(), because that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alisa Sireneva from comment #4)
> With the new reproducer, this doesn't work on 11.4
Oh right I must have missed that when I moved over to the new testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116771
Bug ID: 116771
Summary: Missing suggestion on mispelled class name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: easyhack
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770
Bug ID: 116770
Summary: Diagnostic 'explicit qualification in declaration of'
could be clearer when explicit namespace qualifier
matches the open namespace
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fno-vect-cost-model hides it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102051
Torben Hohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torbenh at gmx dot de
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
Bug ID: 116772
Summary: [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in
eigen-3.4.0 testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59142
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59142&action=edit
test.cxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12)
It didn't this year. It was just a possible topic but we went in another
direction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116753
--- Comment #3 from dcci ---
Slightly easier example that still fails (no nested loop):
```
long patatino() {
long x = 0;
while (x < 10) {
if (x % 2 == 0) {
x += 2;
} else {
x += 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://phabricator.service
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768
Bug ID: 116768
Summary: Strict aliasing breaks autovectorization with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769
Bug ID: 116769
Summary: Instantiation of defaulted default constructor with
non default constructible NDSMIs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
"__builtin_shufflevector instead of __builtin_shuffle for better code
generation"
is certainly not true. Both of the builtins are different and they have their
pros and cons. For the swgl code if it has b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767
--- Comment #4 from Martin Uecker ---
You are right about both. It gets miscompiled also with side effects and if you
are remove the forward declaration, you get:
:10:21: warning: initialization makes '__attribute__((const))'
qualified functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116714
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82c2acd0bc4411524a8248fcdce219927d921a71
commit r15-3694-g82c2acd0bc4411524a8248fcdce219927d921a71
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107390
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82c2acd0bc4411524a8248fcdce219927d921a71
commit r15-3694-g82c2acd0bc4411524a8248fcdce219927d921a71
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107430
Bug 107430 depends on bug 116714, which changed state.
Bug 116714 Summary: [14/15 Regression] Inconsistent lambda type inference in
function template instance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116714
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116714
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107430
Bug 107430 depends on bug 107390, which changed state.
Bug 107390 Summary: template-nested lambda type uniqueness
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107390
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc generate wrong code |[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107390
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #10 from Zartaj Majeed ---
Just tried unsigned duration with system_clock - I guess the requirement for
signed Rep is for the default duration - could this have any legitimate use? Or
should there be a warning?
auto t1 = time_point>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Namniav changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||namniav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #34 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |needs-reduction
--- Comment #16 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
Bug ID: 116774
Summary: ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
well, I mean, it *ought* to be possible to bootstrap with GCC 11 as the host
compiler, right? The "transition to C++14" thread on the mailing lists was just
talking about raising the requirement for the host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
The difference is "code we might massage to make it compile" vs "no idea why
the host compiler is ICEing", i.e. language support vs bugginess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-19
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> The problem is that it's riscv (so 11 is prehistoric in that context) and
> it's also a huge generated file.
>
> tbh, I suspect if you re-run the failing command, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
If I had to bet, it's overheating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87588
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
So with the patch I see tons of "regressions"
(https://github.com/ewlu/gcc-precommit-ci/issues/2248#issuecomment-2355417578)
like for example for
gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vec_sat_u_add-1.c we go f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116757
Bug ID: 116757
Summary: check_effective_target_fileio uses deprecated function
resulting in UNSUPPORTED
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
--- Comment #10 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> So with the patch I see tons of "regressions"
> (https://github.com/ewlu/gcc-precommit-ci/issues/2248#issuecomment-
> 2355417578) like for example for
> gcc.targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116573
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 59135
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59135&action=edit
patch I tested
This is the patch for the CI with the observed issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #29 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Hi Nicolas,
Reviewing v10 (and v11), I have the following comments left:
For patch 1/8, the change in a-calcon.ads is still too intrusive (incompatible
types used), we want to keep the interface (spec) unc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Though, unsure about why ieee is used in the name of some of the patterns,
> my copy of IEEE says that minNum and maxNum should return the non-NaN
> operand if o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116766
Bug ID: 116766
Summary: Missed loop vectorization case with gather/scatter
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116585
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d0cb3b5fca69b81e69cfdb4aea0eebc1ac04750
commit r15-3680-g1d0cb3b5fca69b81e69cfdb4aea0eebc1ac04750
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
6s is currently required by the standard. std::println("{}", d2) formats the
duration as if by writing to an ostream, so is equivalent to std::cout << d2
int8_t is signed char, and writing a signed char t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2022-06-02 00:00:00 |2024-9-18
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's also the subject of https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue4118
Even if we change the behaviour of duration you'll still get silly
output for duration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116763
Bug ID: 116763
Summary: 14-19% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, needs-bisection
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116763
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
Hime Haieto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||himehaieto at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116730
--- Comment #42 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #41)
> I still can't reproduce it even with a 14.2.0 worktree nested under the main
> repo dir.
>
> What does this show when run in the build dir?
>
> grep -w VPA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116764
Bug ID: 116764
Summary: SIGSEGV in C
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > Though, unsure about why ieee is used in the name of some of the patterns,
> > my copy of IEEE says that minNum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116738
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> I think the problem is the mixing of four different substitutions in a
> single pattern,
> in particular round_saeonly and round_saeonly_scalar and mask and
> ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116722
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |simartin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116758
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Note Zen3 also seems to be affected (maybe that allows the revision range to be
constrained more). It possibly sounds like we generate more (vectorized)
epilogues maybe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116759
Bug ID: 116759
Summary: [15 Regression] 5% exec time slowdown of 538.imagick_r
on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs-bisect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116759
Filip Kastl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116258
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:198b13e248e7adfea2d28c4e66ac9f5006b8f825
commit r14-10679-g198b13e248e7adfea2d28c4e66ac9f5006b8f825
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115641
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98dc0471d5409701ae700cd7aba8716fdc500401
commit r14-10677-g98dc0471d5409701ae700cd7aba8716fdc500401
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116764
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116730
--- Comment #43 from Hime Haieto ---
1) Yes, I had been building within a git worktree,
repodir/worktrees/<14.2_worktree>/build/votocon/.
2) The bad links I got looked nuts, like so:
../../../libbacktrace/../../../libbacktrace/../../../libbackt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765
--- Comment #1 from xiaohuba2021 ---
godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/4vTjcdhv5
r march=skylake gives the right output.
gcc version:
```
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-20240918/configure
--prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging
--enable-libstdcxx-backtrace=yes --build=x86_64-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755
--- Comment #9 from Zartaj Majeed ---
Won't I have to separately add units to +d2.count()?
I didn't think to try unsigned types because I'm working with system_clock that
I believe requires signed Rep - but the following doesn't compile for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112109
--- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp ---
Should we close this? I think all of the routines are in or are we missing
something still?
What's IMHO still a TODO is to honor TARGET_MAX_LMUL for some of the builtins
that came first. memcpy for example a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116258
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05db1bea8c1d61d8d9cdb8ede5e305766869d136
commit r14-10678-g05db1bea8c1d61d8d9cdb8ede5e305766869d136
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116274
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5d4f3bae5a9478dc2189e53da933175a6d7b197
commit r14-10681-gd5d4f3bae5a9478dc2189e53da933175a6d7b197
Author: Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116380
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f8a7e1f1904e389e736c0265b4f515f3ce13659
commit r14-10682-g8f8a7e1f1904e389e736c0265b4f515f3ce13659
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116259
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:090926ba817bee6de7ee210efeea5d43d5335868
commit r14-10680-g090926ba817bee6de7ee210efeea5d43d5335868
Author: Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116730
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I still can't reproduce it even with a 14.2.0 worktree nested under the main
repo dir.
What does this show when run in the build dir?
grep -w VPATH x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/{.,32}/libstdc++-v3/src/libbacktra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115426
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b264a4b95b8f27c3c73892892d5c2030d3c8ea7
commit r14-10685-g5b264a4b95b8f27c3c73892892d5c2030d3c8ea7
Author: Richard Biene
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
