https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to aneris from comment #0)
> The code compiles correctly if you replace all the long unsigned with just
> unsigned though, which I find very peculiar, the code also compiles with
> gnu++20 as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #3 from aneris ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The difference is int128_t support.
Could you elaborate a bit? I am afraid I don't follow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. this has nothing to do with ranges::transform_view, the problem is
entirely due to iota_view
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1522r1.pdf has the
background on integer-like cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120259
--- Comment #4 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
> I agree we should revert the static_assert for the swappable traits.
I am most concerned with is_invocable family here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #9 from aneris ---
Hmm, alright.
Thank you very much for your time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
Bug ID: 120306
Summary: Copy constructor with requires
(!std::copy_constructible) is available
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> * I initially tried aliasing __float128 to _Float128, but that broke the
> libstdc++ build:
Libstdc++ could be changed to handle it, but I don't think we want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> In C++ the _FloatN types have special rules that prevent some implicit
> conversions, which would break existing code that uses __float128 and
> expects it t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120302
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120314
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61448
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61448&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.1.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105228
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note starting in GCC 13 the ICE changes to:
:5:15: internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree that contains
'decl minimal' structure, have 'error_mark' in decl_internal_context_p, at
cp/tree.cc:3880
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
--- Comment #2 from mcccs at gmx dot com ---
r16-101-g132d01d96ea9d6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119753
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Isn't there a 30 day period for comments?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > > This fixes the reduced testcase for me, but gfortran.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > > > This fixes the reduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does anybody know why there is the following comment preceding the suspcious
block:
/* Possibly return complex numbers by reference for g77 compatibility.
We don't do this for calls to in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
--- Comment #3 from Nils Gladitz ---
Yes sorry I should have clarified.
I use the following before running the binaries:
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/gcc-15.1.0/lib64
ldd correspondingly confirms:
libstdc++.so.6 => /opt/gcc-15.1.0/lib64/libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120316
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* Saving a register in a register. */
gcc_assert (!fixed_regs [REGNO (dest)]
/* For the SPARC and its register window. */
||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96233
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
gcc_assert (cur_cfa->reg == XEXP (src, 0));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120316
Bug ID: 120316
Summary: GCC-15.1.0 for Target RX: internal compiler error: in
dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr, at dwarf2cfi.cc:1854
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
I was not able to reproduce this on c8000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #22 from James K. Lowden ---
I removed use of glob(3) entirely. The code is actually simpler because there
never was any wildcard; we just iterate over variations on the name. I also
converted all stdio.h to cstdio, etc, for all suc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120314
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing. It is taking longer because I don't want to run into any other
unrelated issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119887
James K. Lowden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-16
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61307|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
Bug ID: 120317
Summary: Missed DCE with __attribute__((const)) bijection
function
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
Kael Franco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61446|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120317
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am not sure this is valid to with documentated const definition.
const does not mean `(arg0 != arg1)` -> `f(arg0) != f(arg1)` and even if you
have `arg0 == g(f(arg0))` as an assumption, that does not mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> > This fixes the reduced testcase for me, but gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90
> > still fails here.
>
> Which m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103312
kargls at comcast dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargls at comcast dot net
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> > Can't be done for the f2c functions.
>
> libgfortran/intrinsics/f2c_specifics.F90 has:
>
> subroutine _gfortran_f2c_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pengxuan Zheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc501cb0dc857663f7fa762f3dbf0ae60973d2c3
commit r16-702-gdc501cb0dc857663f7fa762f3dbf0ae60973d2c3
Author: Pengxuan Zheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pengxuan Zheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0417a630811404c2362060b7e15f99e5a4a0d76a
commit r16-703-g0417a630811404c2362060b7e15f99e5a4a0d76a
Author: Pengxuan Zheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100165
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pengxuan Zheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:265fdb3fa91346f1be40111a9f3e8a0838f7d7fd
commit r16-704-g265fdb3fa91346f1be40111a9f3e8a0838f7d7fd
Author: Pengxuan Zheng
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> I wonder why gfc_return_by_reference is not returning true here because I
> think that would be idea here.
Good point. Tentative patch which excep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> > I wonder why gfc_return_by_reference is not returning true here because I
> > think that would be idea here.
>
> Goo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> Good point. Tentative patch which excepts (d)conjg:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-types.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-types.cc
> index f8980754685..e1e4f16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> This fixes the reduced testcase for me, but gfortran.dg/specifics_1.f90
> still fails here.
Which means there are many more intrinsics here that need this treatment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
Bug ID: 120315
Summary: std::format gcc 14 / 15 interop issue
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120186
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin ---
I was able to reproduce this on c8000. Maybe this is a qemu issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I got undefined behavior (segfault, missing output or exceptions) when using a
>gcc 14 compiled library with a gcc 15 compiled executable.
Forward compatibility is not guaranteed; only backwards.
Does G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120315
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Wait I read that incorrectly.
That which libstdc++ shared library is being loaded?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to aneris from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > The difference is int128_t support.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit? I am afraid I don't follow.
I am saying why `-std=c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #20 from James K. Lowden ---
> NAME_MAX has been removed entirely as of
> ca44643f75c437fb1fb4b17e59b72bc836d12cc6.
This commit isn't in the gcc repo yet.
>> * GLOB_BRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems clearly undefined nonsense, so what difference does it make whether
it compiles?
copy_constructible depends on an incomplete type, for a start.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120272
Simon Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> An iota_view with unsigned long elements (i.e. 64-bit integers) must use
> something wider than 64 bits for the difference_type of its iterators. The
> C++2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96710
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think we should try to do this for GCC 16, so we don't have ODR violations
between -std=c++20 and -std=gnu++20 for anything that depends on
iterator_traits>>::iterator_category
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96710
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120299
--- Comment #13 from Tymi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> (In reply to Tymi from comment #4)
> > Why not check for __clang__ and fallback to a compatible solution then?
>
> Because that should only ever be a last resort. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> > * I initially tried aliasing __float128 to _Float128, but that broke the
> > libstdc++ build:
>
> Libstdc++ co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120304
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But of course then it needs to be mangled differently from long double and
_Float128 too.
Itanium ABI documents e for long double, g for __float128 and DF128_ for
_Float128,
not really sure if g isn't alread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96710
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120312
Bug ID: 120312
Summary: internal compiler error: error reporting routines
re-entered. in build_array_type_1 since 4.7.1 until
trunk
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120306
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
So clang accepts it also when using libstdc++. when using libc++ clang rejects
it due to the type trait __is_nothrow_destructible being used with an
incomplete type.
Simplified testcase:
```
#include
str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
--- Comment #2 from Andr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61449
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61449&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61449|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120289
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-17
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120274
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120274
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 61451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61451&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-17
Summary|internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.1.0, 11.2.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120318
Bug ID: 120318
Summary: Module deduced return type error.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
aneris changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aneris at disroot dot org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #5 from aneris ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to aneris from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > The difference is int128_t support.
> >
> > Could you elaborate a bit? I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120303
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
Bug ID: 120307
Summary: ICE in combine_with_ipa_count_within, at
profile-count.cc:410 during aarch64 -O3
profiledbootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120311
Bug ID: 120311
Summary: internal compiler error: in lookup_base, at
cp/search.cc:251
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120310
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65909
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118603
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120310
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess one case is when tree DSE removes all stores to some automatic
addressable variable, in that case it would be nice to populate debug stmts to
all those removed locs and state what values it had there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118603
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dca6f3534d2b6c52cecc770c40b204fb5e4a12b3
commit r16-694-gdca6f3534d2b6c52cecc770c40b204fb5e4a12b3
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120287
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Should this be two separate bugs? There might be one that's been there since
gcc-5 but there's still a newer one that's is a gcc-15 regression.
It's only ice-on-invalid-code though, so I guess it's not to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120299
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tymi from comment #4)
> Why not check for __clang__ and fallback to a compatible solution then?
Because that should only ever be a last resort. The right way to do it is write
portable code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120287
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess it depends on what approach is used to fix this.
If just handling error_mark_node gracefully during the mangling (emit something
in that case, what exactly doesn't matter much) and/or somehow figure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
Bug ID: 120305
Summary: Cannot create a std::vector from a
std::ranges::transform_view.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> > So the easy workaround is not use tree_expr_nonnegative_p as predicate here
> > and just do:
> > ```
> > (sim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120280
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Well, the issue is that tree_expr_nonnegative_p does not honor
no_follow_ssa_edges in
static bool
cleanup_control_expr_graph (basic_block bb, gimple_stmt_iterator gsi)
{
...
switch (gimple_code (stm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Specifically, we have these concepts used to select a partial specialization of
std::iterator_traits:
template
concept __cpp17_iterator = requires(_Iter __it)
{
{ *__it } -> _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120305
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
tl;dr if you want to compile with strict -std=c++20 -pedantic settings, you
need to strictly follow the rules of the standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It looks like TYPE_EMPTY_P is only used during RTL expansion for ABI purposes,
so computing it during layout_type is premature as shown here.
I would suggest to simply re-compute it at offload stream-in ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120308
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> Created attachment 61442 [details]
> '0001-TYPE_EMPTY_P-vs.-code-offloading-PR120308.patch'
>
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > It looks lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120309
Bug ID: 120309
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault in
groktypename since gcc 15.1
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120295
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.rodriguezb1 at um dot es
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120309
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115940
MARIO RODRIGUEZ BEJAR changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.rodriguezb1 at um dot es
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
