https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78437
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78437
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
Bug ID: 78443
Summary: Incorrect behavior with non_overridable keyword
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78438
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Before combine we have:
(insn 6 5 7 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 92)
(ashiftrt:SI (reg:SI 93 [ b ])
(const_int 11 [0xb])))
(clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78427
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
Bug ID: 78444
Summary: Wrong prologue stack alignment for implicit dtor on
x86_64-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78435
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, maybe it's DECL_SIZE (of the FIELD_DECL) vs. TYPE_PRECISION mismatch not
honored by store merging (I can very well think of other places having the
same confusion...).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Assignment of negative values to signed bitfields has caused me some headaches
in encode_tree_to_bitpos due to native_encode_expr sign-extending the value to
GET_MODE_SIZE (TYPE_MODE (...)) bytes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78445
Bug ID: 78445
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at optabs.c:7014
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78433
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
Is that with any specific version of Glibc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The over-sized bitfield isn't really needed for this, making it more severe:
struct S {
long int : 23;
long int a : 24;
long int b : 10;
long int c : 24;
signed char d : 8;
} s;
__attribute__((noin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78433
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #5)
> Is that with any specific version of Glibc?
I was using trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78433
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
To reproduce build glibc with -O3 and then run "make check".
Or directly:
~ % ~/glibc_build/elf/ld.so --library-path /home/trippels/glibc_build/
~/glibc_build/posix/tst-vfork3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase:
enum demangle_component_type
{
DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_THROW_SPEC
};
struct demangle_component
{
enum demangle_component_type type;
struct
{
struct
{
struct de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40096
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40096&action=edit
gcc7-pr78436.patch
Untested fix. Most of the changes are just nits I ran into when debugging,
the real fix is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78433
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
This code from maybe_script_execute() writes past the allocated array bounds:
/* Construct an argument list for the shell. */
char *new_argv[argc + 1];
new_argv[0] = (char *) _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78435
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78445
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78446
Bug ID: 78446
Summary: Ambiguous member lookup for operator() in a function
call expression treated as hard error in SFINAE
context
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78433
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt ---
... and I think the buffer allocated in __execvpe() is also one byte too small:
char buffer[path_len + file_len + 1];
...
char *pend = mempcpy (buffer, p, subp - p); <-- path_len
*pend = '/';
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE happens due to r242590.
Need to figure out if it is the cause of the bug or just exposes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78433
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78437
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 40098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40098&action=edit
Tentative fix
It only affects Alpha (by default) but I no longer have access to Alpha
hardware so I'm going to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78073
Andrey Zholos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@q-fu.com
--- Comment #2 from Andrey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69278
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I've just verified that clang 3.8.1 emits *_noabort calls with
-fsanitize-recover=all:
$ clang++ -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-recover=all /tmp/leak.c -S ; grep store
leak.s
callq __asan_report_stor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78447
Bug ID: 78447
Summary: [7 Regression] wrong code when combine changes shifts
by << 5 and >> 15 to >> 10 at -O
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69278
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe llvm doesn't care about backwards compatibility, but we do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78428
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78437
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> Created attachment 40098 [details]
> Tentative fix
>
> It only affects Alpha (by default) but I no longer have access to Alpha
> hardware so I'm going to play with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
It looks like this guard in set_and_canonicalize_value_range:
/* For one bit precision if max < min, then the swapped
range covers all values, so for VR_RANGE it is varying and
for VR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78093
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Nov 21 12:23:14 2016
New Revision: 242660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78093
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_decl_maybe_lds_p)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It's built by build_nonstandard_boolean_type via
(gdb) bt
#0 0x01204281 in build_nonstandard_boolean_type (precision=32)
at /space/rguenther/src/gcc-git/gcc/tree.c:8219
#1 0x0120e478 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |6.3
Summary|[5/6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78447
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Wasn't backported to GCC5 (yet).
There is no plan to backport it to GCC 5 though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> where -1 no longer "fits" bool even though it should. So
>
> /* Short-circuit boolean types since various transformations assume that
> they can only take values 0 and 1. */
> if (TREE_CODE (typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #8)
> > where -1 no longer "fits" bool even though it should. So
> >
> > /* Short-circuit boolean types since various transformations assume that
> > they can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It's built by build_nonstandard_boolean_type via
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x01204281 in build_nonstandard_boolean_type (precision=32)
> at /space/rguenther/src/gcc-git/gcc/tree.c:8219
> #1 0x00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78411
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, starting with r242550 this FAILs now everywhere. The question is why it
FAILed for H.J. before r242550.
So shall we just add -ftree-loop-if-convert to dg-options of this test?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
The following made them signed (but not precision 1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03030.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
The ??? comments worry me -- can't this leave us with the same kinds of
regressions that led to PR77848? I think the specific test in that PR may
regress again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
>
> --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > It's built by build_nonstandard_bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78411
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78411
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Oh, starting with r242550 this FAILs now eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
>
> --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
> The ??? comments worry me -- can't this le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78432
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-linux-gnu, |x86_64-linux-gnu,
|s3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64802
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78411
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
index 4f17200..c50c598 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
@@ -3017,6 +3017,7 @@ insert_into_preds_of_block (basic_block block, unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78448
Bug ID: 78448
Summary: Container max_size() functions don't consider the
range of their difference_type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
On 21/11/16 03:10 +, Robert Young wrote:
/*
gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c++11 copy_n_vs_copy.cpp -lstdc++ -o copy_n_vs_copy
One Past the End
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/iterators.html#iterators.predefined.end
BUG location:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/5.1.0/include/g++-v5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Nov 21 14:10:11 2016
New Revision: 242661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-11-21 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/78413
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I'll test it out shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #13 from Matt Godbolt ---
We will try and get a small repro case. It comes from open source software:
it's from the compiling_tests.cpp program in trompeloeil
(https://github.com/rollbear/trompeloeil/blob/master/compiling_tests.cpp. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71973
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Nov 21 14:17:05 2016
New Revision: 242662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2016-11-21 Bernd Edlinger
PR c++/71973
* doc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78400
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 21 14:44:21 2016
New Revision: 242663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
shrink-wrap: Fix problem with DF checking (PR78400)
With my previou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Nov 21 14:58:19 2016
New Revision: 242664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR testsuite/78114
* gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 21 15:15:21 2016
New Revision: 242665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242665&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Testcase for PR71785
gcc/testsuite/
PR rtl-optimization/71
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78208
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As discussed on gcc-patches, I think this is only a compile-time hog with
-fdump-tree-original.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78449
Bug ID: 78449
Summary: compile time ieee_support_halting is not correct on
arm and aarch64 ( FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90
-Os execution test )
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
gfortran.dg/vect/pr77848.f indeed still passes with this change.
I suppose that similar code where something else in the block could be
vectorized would still regress, though. I don't think that's sufficient
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78324
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Nov 21 15:50:38 2016
New Revision: 242667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
substring_loc info needs default track-macro-expansion (PR preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78324
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77810
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78450
Bug ID: 78450
Summary: strlen(s) return value can be assumed to be less than
the size of s
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78445
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That change is clearly bogus, if we have any masked loads/stores, we need to
version the loop, even if -ftree-loop-if-convert. Will test a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
r242664 seems to fix the issue I reported in comment 3/4. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77810
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I haven't posted the patch for review. IIRC, I put it together in hopes of
enhancing the -Wformat-length notes to refer to the arguments of the directives
and offering fixit hints showing how to resolve some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77831
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451
Bug ID: 78451
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22a.c: error: inlining
failed in call to always_inline '_mm512_setzero_ps'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77676
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78428
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed this behavior is a bug.
Looking at the dump generated with -fdump-tree-original, it seems that all
typebound-procedure calls are generated as they should be:
* The three calls in the main p
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
