https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120841
--- Comment #2 from rockeet ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Gcc is already better than llvm by figuring out the return of memcpy is the
> first argument.
>
> I am not sure if the one extra move is going hurt here either.
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target|X86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120842
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120842
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There might be a dup of this one already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120842
Bug ID: 120842
Summary: optimization for check many equal by bits or
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120839
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|X86_64 |x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
Bug ID: 120843
Summary: [Coarray] Inconsistent ranks for operator reported
when coarray ranks differ
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120844
Bug ID: 120844
Summary: ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault during
GIMPLE pass: omplower
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
Bug ID: 120850
Summary: provide an special __builtin_memset_explicit
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Using an inline-asm to cause compiler barriers should be enough to stop gcc
from optimizing the code away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Python/ceval.o is miscompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120851
Bug ID: 120851
Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_call, at
calls.cc:3729
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
> unless this is a special function known to the compiler it still be subject
> to optimizations that will break this rules.
Why do you think that is the case? Do you any examples of that because that
woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
--- Comment #9 from Cristian Rodríguez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Using an inline-asm to cause compiler barriers should be enough to stop gcc
> from optimizing the code away.
The library implementation does that. but call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120851
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115411
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bic60176 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120852
Bug ID: 120852
Summary: internal compiler error: in analyze_functions, at
cgraphunit.cc:1418
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
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=120850
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Again I think it is wrong to have a builtin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see a reason for the builtin unless you want to optimization it away
which should not happen with the _exlicit functions at all.
Access and the other attributes for nullness should be enough for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> standard..because it is up to the compiler to honour the "never elided,
> regardless of optimizations"
Gcc does not elide away any unknown function so why not make it unknown to gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120850
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Cristian Rodríguez from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Using an inline-asm to cause compiler barriers should be enough to stop gcc
> > from optimizing the code aw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120853
Bug ID: 120853
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault at contains_struct_check()
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bic60176 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120853
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120852
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bic60176 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4fc387e2f6990986d72b023ee44b4e0030903247
commit r16-1746-g4fc387e2f6990986d72b023ee44b4e0030903247
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4aadc60154c62425c36c61d23c7549d31fe1397
commit r16-1747-gb4aadc60154c62425c36c61d23c7549d31fe1397
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61736
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61736&action=edit
a-sqlite3.i.xz
The fix for PR120471 is in the C++ FE. Attached preprocessed source from
releases/gcc-13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d3467a14bbd75469f114b047590ebbffa4a9c8b
commit r16-1742-g9d3467a14bbd75469f114b047590ebbffa4a9c8b
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Summary|False-positive from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 61738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61738&action=edit
New testcase
The committed patch unfortunately broke this (reduced) testcase:
pr120784-v2.f90:23:2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> Created attachment 61738 [details]
> New testcase
>
> The committed patch unfortunately broke this (reduced) testcase:
We run into the following:
(gdb) p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] C++ |[16 Regression] C++
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] C++ |[15/16 Regression] C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #455 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 61734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61734&action=edit
Error log for building gcc-16 with LRA enabled, no patches
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04c597c05494e38cc9c231581737c1d7d7579e51
commit r16-1743-g04c597c05494e38cc9c231581737c1d7d7579e51
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a148b0377805376e33f36bed0e48a401a6dd82c6
commit r16-1740-ga148b0377805376e33f36bed0e48a401a6dd82c6
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07832a5205389b4dc2b92fe58213386fe30ca618
commit r16-1744-g07832a5205389b4dc2b92fe58213386fe30ca618
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d06373fa3483a1ccb182c2da7e6cf2330f48bac1
commit r16-1745-gd06373fa3483a1ccb182c2da7e6cf2330f48bac1
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118209
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92417c387365033cac4fff7ec8da2b42bd75dfba
commit r16-1741-g92417c387365033cac4fff7ec8da2b42bd75dfba
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92417c387365033cac4fff7ec8da2b42bd75dfba
commit r16-1741-g92417c387365033cac4fff7ec8da2b42bd75dfba
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61737
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61737&action=edit
a-shell.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #7 from Holger Hoffstätte ---
Sorry if the following is unhelpful - I'm just an interested observer.
Since I could easily reproduce the problem I decided to poke at things
in gdb and got a bit annoyed at the bad test code style. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120837
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Self-contained testcase:
[[gnu::noipa]] void
bar (void **x, void **y)
{
x[0] = 0;
x[1] = 0;
x[2] = 0;
y[0] = 0;
y[1] = 0;
y[2] = 0;
y[3] = 0;
y[4] = 0;
}
[[gnu::noipa]] void *
foo (int x, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed by:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc
index cdb838d8336..7899864158c 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc
@@ -457,7 +457,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120818
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Hi Lili,
> Thank you for reporting this issue and giving the actual output. I have
> relaxed
> the testcase check. Could you test this patch in your environment? Thank you
> very much.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
A new-line character ends the preprocessing directive even ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112641
--- Comment #7 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6)
> Fixed for 15 / 14.3 / 13.4
But you didn't *optimize* the non-const begin, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|C++ multiline module|[16 Regression] C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61731
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61731&action=edit
A workaround patch
This workaround patch works for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120846
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I guess the testcase assumes that the qi->si case gets an intermediate
qi->hi promotion and then dotprod_hisi being used. But it fails to check
for the ability to do qi->hi promotion. Is that what your ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120846
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
vect_unpack would be required to perform qi->hi promotion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120847
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
Bug ID: 120845
Summary: C++20 module syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 15.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> Looking at dumps between r15-579-ga9251ab3c91c8c and
> r15-580-gf3e5f4c58591f5, there's a lot of noise like:
> ```
> - # PT = nonlocal escaped null { D.387695 D.41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120818
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> Hi Lili,
>
> > Thank you for reporting this issue and giving the actual output. I have
> > relaxed
> > the testcase check. Could you test this pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120818
--- Comment #4 from cuilili ---
Thank you all！
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120846
Bug ID: 120846
Summary: vect_dotprod_hisi is used inconsistently with
documentation and name in Test of autovectorization of
different dot-prod modes
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120845
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The more important is the
The last preprocessing token in the sequence is the first preprocessing token
within the sequence that is immediately followed by whitespace containing a
new-line character.
line be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120848
Bug ID: 120848
Summary: -fmodule-header -fmodules-ts -x c++-system-header
dives into symbolic links
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119971
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de6124c9e5ed472f567b51fa76f18335cdddbbaf
commit r16-1732-gde6124c9e5ed472f567b51fa76f18335cdddbbaf
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Fri Jun 27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Bug 56183 depends on bug 118591, which changed state.
Bug 118591 Summary: [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
Bug 113934 depends on bug 118591, which changed state.
Bug 118591 Summary: [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120471
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120040
Nathaniel Shead changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
I'll find some time to try make more progress. Will try adding a counter if I
cannot get further with reducing, but luckily, the C++ in the file isn't too
complex ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This is the error I am seeing.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 12:38 AM vehre at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs <
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120843
>
> Bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Congratulations, and thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120608
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 61735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61735&action=edit
gcc16-pr120608.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #456 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #455)
> Created attachment 61734 [details]
> Error log for building gcc-16 with LRA enabled, no patches
>
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120849
Bug ID: 120849
Summary: Missing debug (tree)
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120839
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
User alignment is ignored for parameters passed on stack:
static unsigned int
ix86_function_arg_boundary (machine_mode mode, const_tree type)
{
unsigned int align;
if (type)
{
/* Since the main var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 120777, which changed state.
Bug 120777 Summary: [C++26] P3533R2 - constexpr virtual inheritance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120777
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 120777, which changed state.
Bug 120777 Summary: [C++26] P3533R2 - constexpr virtual inheritance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120777
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120756
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a394cfb29adf603b72151d2423270db6516b05ed
commit r16-1754-ga394cfb29adf603b72151d2423270db6516b05ed
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119356
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 regression] |[15 Regression]
|lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b8a32a0bb69b52fa8d1b80cdb6a1581d0cfa5d4
commit r15-9869-g1b8a32a0bb69b52fa8d1b80cdb6a1581d0cfa5d4
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120839
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
crtl->parm_stack_boundary == 128 looks odd:
(gdb) list
2612 stack. */
2613 if (!in_regs && crtl->parm_stack_boundary < data->locate.boundary)
2614crtl->parm_stack_boundary = data->locate.bou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120812
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Christophe Peyret from comment #11)
> same on Mac ARM :)
Good. So it is most likely the issue with SAVEd pointer/allocatable
that was recently fixed.
To verify, you can try the fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Regtested fine here.
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-June/062395.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120784
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ddff83b3dde4a8308d0e156f85693e7176b85524
commit r16-1749-gddff83b3dde4a8308d0e156f85693e7176b85524
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120777
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f86ebb00406dafed3b8ebeae6e9e9d613abdf2ec
commit r16-1751-gf86ebb00406dafed3b8ebeae6e9e9d613abdf2ec
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120777
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120839
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[16 Regression] ICE on |[16 Regression] Incorrect
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120839
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61739&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61740
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61740&action=edit
foo.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120358
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kacper.slominski72 at gmail
dot co
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
