https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120013
--- Comment #5 from Amber Ehrlich ---
Ehh he's not sure so I'll do it anyways. Removing the other 2 cases from this
post
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
I can have a look at reducing if nobody else can, just it may be a few days.
But
are you sure fsck.c is actually the miscompiled file (verified that)?
>
> I diffed the new preprocessed file with the old one a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120015
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120018
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120018
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #31 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ivăncescu from comment #30)
> Why would it not be safe? For MinGW specifically, what's not safe about it?
> The entire Windows stack assumes only 4-byte alignment for i386, because
> that's w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120017
Bug ID: 120017
Summary: Nested diagnostics could be slightly improved for
concepts-related diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120015
Bug ID: 120015
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.cc:25969
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120014
Bug ID: 120014
Summary: SIGSEGV ICE with modules related to instantiation of
templates across partition units (case 2)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #5 from Avraham Hollander ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #4)
> I can have a look at reducing if nobody else can, just it may be a few days.
> But
> are you sure fsck.c is actually the miscompiled file (verified that)?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61247
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61247&action=edit
fsck.i.xz
Reduced (but could do with more) testcase attached.
$ gcc fsck.c -o fsck -save-temps -O2 -fsigned-char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
I need to do other things for tonight so won't be reducing it further for now.
Feel free to take over.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61248
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61248&action=edit
fsck.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #11 from Konstantin Belousov ---
Also the following regression was introduced in 15:
--- gcc/ada/init.c~ 2025-04-25 11:18:00.0 +0300
+++ gcc/ada/init.c 2025-04-26 08:07:51.804119000 +0300
@@ -1686,8 +1686,8 @@
#inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
Konstantin Belousov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kostikbel at ukr dot net
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120013
--- Comment #6 from Amber Ehrlich ---
Ahh I can't edit, well, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120014 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120016 are crash 2 and 3
respectively
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] |[15/16 Regression]
|Impos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #3 from Avraham Hollander ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you try the backporting the commit in PR 119973 and seeing if that fixes
> this one too? If so please close this as a dup of bug 119973.
It did not fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117312
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109162
--- Comment #27 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tomasz Kaminski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ca5725e104d432317a44ad45183a4f555da3b82
commit r16-293-g2ca5725e104d432317a44ad45183a4f555da3b82
Author: Tomasz KamiÅski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
--- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #3)
> Also note, that the above generates the expected temporary arrays.
A tangential question: Why is this expected? I would have naively thought that
a dope
vector with a s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119547
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae6ce4cd33d00b8acc9503b0d4883fa92c1a696d
commit r14-11700-gae6ce4cd33d00b8acc9503b0d4883fa92c1a696d
Author: Robin Dapp
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119533
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e363940e1cef7f6face970414ffaa565daf413bd
commit r14-11701-ge363940e1cef7f6face970414ffaa565daf413bd
Author: Vineet Gupta
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61249
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61249&action=edit
small.c
This cvise-mangled one (tidied up a fair bit after) seems to do it, but it's
weird, e.g. swapping g/h mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 4/29/25 17:01, neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
>
> --- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
> (In reply to kargls from comment #3)
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62244
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120012
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120016
Bug ID: 120016
Summary: SIGSEGV ICE with modules related to instantiation of
templates across partition units (case 3)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Avraham Hollander from comment #5)
> So it could be code from either of those files. How would you narrow that
> down further?
What I usually do is:
* Build it manually (git clone ... && cd ... &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.1.0, 16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120006
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
It's definitely related to the x* functions. Using __builtin_XXX() instead
makes it work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120017
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||67491
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99217
--- Comment #8 from chenglulu ---
Patch https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-April/682268.html can fix
this bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120012
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried clang++ on godbolt and it has the C++17 layout for all language modes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120018
Bug ID: 120018
Summary: internal compiler error: in redirect_to_unreachable,
at ipa-fnsummary.cc:258 for 32-bits
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1cada7481420a23fbec525548ef5bdf64839a34
commit r16-271-gd1cada7481420a23fbec525548ef5bdf64839a34
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Nov 29 18:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117839
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1cada7481420a23fbec525548ef5bdf64839a34
commit r16-271-gd1cada7481420a23fbec525548ef5bdf64839a34
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Nov 29 18:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117839
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
(Sorry if I included too much information, this is my first time making
a manual bug report by email.)
I ran into this error when I forgot to specify all the elements in an
array aggregate, but instead of a compiler error or warning, I got a bug
box. To be specific: Inside a protected object,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa29654b1128a572c97fcaba94095f493662a0db
commit r16-276-gaa29654b1128a572c97fcaba94095f493662a0db
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Tue A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111657
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So I do have a patch amending the r15-5863 revision to allow vectorizing the
cases again but it regresses gcc.dg/vect/pr116352.c (the testcase the code
was added for) since we run into a similar issue in SL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120001
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119317
--- Comment #5 from Chris Bazley ---
Patch has been emailed to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120002
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120002
Thomas Weißschuh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Wei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120001
--- Comment #4 from Vincenzo Romano ---
Id the double amoor op intentional?
If so, why?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It stopped aborting with r14-2709-g65ff4a45b11b5ab13ef849bd5721ab28ff316202
Author: Jan Hubicka
AuthorDate: Fri Jul 21 13:54:23 2023
loop-ch improvements, part 5
Currently loop-ch skips all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Using -fno-finite-loops prevents the assertion from failing:
-ffinite-loops
Assume that a loop with an exit will eventually take the exit and not loop
indefinitely.
This allows the compiler to remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. with -O3 we just exit without aborting or looping, even after r14-2709.
That's OK, because the behaviour is undefined. It would be nice if we inserted
an unreachable or a trap that -fsanitize=undefine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113484
--- Comment #5 from John Platts ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> Ah, this was about *actual* half-precision float, which indeed is 3.0
> (Power9).
>
> But all the same holds: it needs to be added to the ABI before we can h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It started aborting with r272234 aka r10-1052-gc29c92c789d938
Author: Feng Xue
AuthorDate: Thu Jun 13 05:17:42 2019
PR tree-optimization/89713 - Assume loop with an exit is finite
gcc/Change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119806
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Similarly (I suppose, but have not checked the details), OpenMP_VV
'tests/5.0/application_kernels/declare_target_base_and_derived_class.cpp':
GCN:
ld: error: undefined symbol: vtable for S1
>>> r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119844
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
Bug ID: 120003
Summary: Missed Optimisation / Regression
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119235
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d41ce9f7c392d5110a63d61c4c85fb7a5f2f
commit r12-11075-gd41ce9f7c392d5110a63d61c4c85fb7a5f2f
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120001
Bug ID: 120001
Summary: On RISC-V with -O2 and -O3 __sync_or_and_fetch in a
loop renders as an endless loop and multiple amoor
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118794
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119235
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119997
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc62834533f357125b9c1934f80c2ba249adbf9e
commit r16-281-gfc62834533f357125b9c1934f80c2ba249adbf9e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.1.0, 15.1.0
Summary|[13/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119427
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119427
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa93272cfd2233858da0792761387cc27f4d5ff3
commit r16-282-gaa93272cfd2233858da0792761387cc27f4d5ff3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104734
Eugene Shalygin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eugene.shalygin at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119900
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120002
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119964
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119317
--- Comment #6 from Byron Stanoszek ---
I confirm that Chris's patch does indeed fix the compile issue.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe r12-3453-g01b5038718056b024b370b74a874fbd92c5bbab3 .
GCC from emitting absolute relocations?
Similar to how this code works with clang or -mcmodel=small?
> If you want that you should do the similar thing as what the 32bit compat
> does for a similar reasons.
This is what I am doing for now:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250429-vd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I bet it's caused by some jump threading changes for FSM threading
opportunities.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120001
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vincenzo Romano from comment #4)
> Id the double amoor op intentional?
>
> If so, why?
I said why:
Unrolling the infinite loop is what happens.
We copy the inner basic block of the loop to "u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110800
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120001
--- Comment #1 from Vincenzo Romano ---
Please, mark this bug as INVALID.
At least for the endless loop part.
I am not sure about the double amoor instruction, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61234|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
LIU Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61236|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120002
Bug ID: 120002
Summary: R_AARCH64_ABS64 emitted against hidden symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120001
--- Comment #2 from Vincenzo Romano ---
If I put __sync_fetch_and_or instead of __sync_or_and_fetch I objously get the
expected behavior as fas as the endless loop is concerned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-29
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a0a64aa5da0af5ecb022675cdb9140ccfa098ce3
commit r16-270-ga0a64aa5da0af5ecb022675cdb9140ccfa098ce3
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue Nov 12 09:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119980
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Yes, it looks very very similar.
>
> In peephole2 the redundant load/store pair keeping the = 2 store data
> dependent on the later load vanishes (with -fdisa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Bug ID: 11
Summary: Wrong Pointer Comparison in GCC 10/11/12/13 with
-Os/-Oz Flags
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119998
Bug ID: 119998
Summary: ICE (segfault) on missing constraint in redeclaration.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #32 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3cf97980aaab6971ae179625a5e1188255dcf925
commit r16-273-g3cf97980aaab6971ae179625a5e1188255dcf925
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is nonsense.
-O0 -fvar-tracking doesn't work and would be substantial amount of work, far
more than artificially adding uses of all vars at the end of their scopes for
-Og.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #33 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
@Richard Biener: thank you for the change! If I may point out though, the new
text still says:
> […]-Og should be the optimization level of choice for the standard
> edit-compile-debug cycle, offerin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #34 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
> which is a problem, because it which is a problem, because it the actual
> situation
whoops, sorry, not sure what happened to that part, it's supposed to be "which
is a problem, because it contrad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119983
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524
Bug 103524 depends on bug 119983, which changed state.
Bug 119983 Summary: Member function in unnamed type causes internal compiler
error in module.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119983
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119983
--- Comment #3 from Nathaniel Shead ---
I will note that making the variable internal linkage will silence GCC 15,
since a TU-local variable itself is not an exposure; this is appropriate if you
only need the variable within that TU. For exampl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118581
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59e853308bd797f91df15fd0fa65a3b5ce2cf4a2
commit r16-274-g59e853308bd797f91df15fd0fa65a3b5ce2cf4a2
Author: hongtao.liu
Date: Wed Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #35 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #31)
> That is nonsense.
> -O0 -fvar-tracking doesn't work and would be substantial amount of work, far
> more than artificially adding uses of all vars at the end of th
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
