https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92388
Bug ID: 92388
Summary: ICE in insert_regs, at cse.c:1129
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92279
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918
--- Comment #16 from stli at linux dot ibm.com ---
Just as information, this glibc commit will be first available with glibc 2.31
release:
"S390: Fp comparison are now raising FE_INVALID with gcc 10."
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90589
--- Comment #11 from mccannd at uk dot ibm.com ---
I've just discovered that /usr/bin/free also exhibits the same symptoms.
runk -v
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 10.0.0 20191105 (experimental) [trunk revision 277821] (GCC)
#expected output
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c
$ gdb -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x400540: file abc.c, line 12.
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:12
12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91318
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Piotr Henryk Dabrowski from comment #3)
> Sent:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00325.html
Sorry that it doesn't seem to have been reviewed yet; please ping it
occasionally!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I haven't had time to debug it but it would help if the test set up an alarm to
avoid hanging the build. Otherwise I have no choice but to disable go in my
builds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #25 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #24 from Sori Lee ---
I retract my last report. I mistakenly thought my example compiled on clang,
but rightly it didn't there either -- the U in the partial specialisation is in
a non-deduced context, and fails to be deduced as discu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #22 from postmas...@trippelsdorf-de.bounceio.net ---
Your email was bounced...
-
... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Ugh!
What to do next?
Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Sori Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s.lee at dpmms dot cam.ac.uk
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Nov 6 01:25:09 2019
New Revision: 277871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92373 - ICE in -Warray-bounds on access to member arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There are a gazillion ways to write this without if_then_else, none
obviously better than any other, and it gets much worse if your b,c
have special values.
I don't think this optimisation should be d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92090
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|[10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 5 23:53:53 2019
New Revision: 277864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix conversions for built-in operator overloading candidates.
While worki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92263
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92263
--- Comment #8 from Jim Wilson ---
Author: wilson
Date: Tue Nov 5 22:34:40 2019
New Revision: 277861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Allow libcalls for complex memcpy when optimizing for size.
The RISC-V back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have just created a bug to record the debugging issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92386
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Feel free to open an issue against GDB o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92386
Bug ID: 92386
Summary: gdb issue with variable-shadowing
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #3 from Carl ---
Original "good.cpp" and "bad.cpp" sources now attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> I think the IF_THEN_ELSE version should be canonical, and it should be
> formed in simplify_rtx, not at random spots in combine.
Why? The and/ior varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #2 from Carl ---
Created attachment 47181
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47181&action=edit
source that does not exhibit bad compilation performance
Note the constructor initializes the member with parens: "item_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 47180
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47180&action=edit
possible fix
This seems to fix the issue,
although a fix in cxx_eval_constant_expression
might be preferrable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
--- Comment #1 from Carl ---
Created attachment 47179
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47179&action=edit
original source file with bad compilation performance
Note the brace member initialization in the constructor: "item_arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385
Bug ID: 92385
Summary: extremely long and memory intensive compilation for
brace construction of array member
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92363, which changed state.
Bug 92363 Summary: wrong subscript value printed when indexing into an empty
array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92363
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
class Empty {};
bool is_same(Empty a, Empty b)
{
__builtin_printf("%p\n%p\n", &a, &b);
void* v[] = { &a, &b };
return v[0] == v[1];
}
int main() {
Empty a, b;
if (is_same(a, b))
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Can you please stop changing the status to FIXED. That means a bug in GCC was
fixed. Since nothing in GCC changed, nothing has been fixed.
I think all compilers are trying to convert the object to std::pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
@Richi: May I please remind you this issue?
Is the debugging patching helping to isolate the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384
Bug ID: 92384
Summary: Empty class instances have different equal testing
result among GCC versions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sure. But it still is harmless, and a special build config.
Which isn't to say it shouldn't be fixed. But it isn't very high on
the list, that's all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92380
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Feel free to open an issue against GDB or GCC< wherever the debug info issue is
e.g. for the #c4 testcase. Because certainly I see 0 as the value of v even
when it should be 1 or 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> That's when building the compiler with -O0 only.
I also see it when doing a normal bootstrap with
--with-build-config=bootstrap-asan. Which should use -O2 -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #5 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Okay, I see. thank you for explanation.
I will close this one as not a bug.
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92367
--- Comment #2 from Born Togo <60rntogo at gmail dot com> ---
That's perfect. For what it's worth, I did try searching for this bug report
first, but somehow didn't find it. Sorry for littering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So:
-- LLVM should support "wa", since that is *the* constraint for VSX registers.
-- musl should use the "wa" constraint in its inline asm.
-- If after those two you still want "ws" (for compiling lega
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This boils down to
int
main ()
{
volatile int v = 0;
{
v++;
v++;
volatile int v = 4;
v++;
}
}
>From what I see, this is handled correctly in the generated code, so it is just
the debuggi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, you should use "wa".
Making our constraint (and output modifier) doc more useful is on my list
for GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92338
Mick P. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Mick P. ---
I began
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Most likely just GDB doesn't handle it correctly, or a bug in what we emit as
debug info for it (for -O0 it wouldn't surprise me, as we don't really track
the scope of the variable).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92375
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
--- Comment #2 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Why is this a major issue? Just variable shadowing, so something that with
> -Wshadow* compiler will warn, but nothing more, the code is well defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Nov 5 17:20:00 2019
New Revision: 277856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277856&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport for PR91289
Backport from trunk
2019-10-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Nov 5 17:17:03 2019
New Revision: 277855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277855&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport for PR91289
Backport from trunk
2019-10-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92333
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92333
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 5 17:05:33 2019
New Revision: 277854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277854&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92333 - missing variable name referencing VLA in warnings
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 5 17:05:33 2019
New Revision: 277854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277854&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92333 - missing variable name referencing VLA in warnings
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92370
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Nov 5 16:59:41 2019
New Revision: 277853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277853&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/92370] ICE with VC marker
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92370
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92383
Bug ID: 92383
Summary: ICE: in refs_may_alias_p_1, at tree-ssa-alias.c:1519
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 82612, which changed state.
Bug 82612 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a non-zero offset from the address
of a non-array object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82612
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92382
Bug ID: 92382
Summary: variable double-definition in routine
replace_filename_variables of
libgcc/libgcov-driver-system.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92341
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92341, which changed state.
Bug 92341 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a compound
literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92341
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82612
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 5 16:20:44 2019
New Revision: 277851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92341 - missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92341
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 5 16:20:44 2019
New Revision: 277851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92341 - missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86611
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92371
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 5 16:12:07 2019
New Revision: 277850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92371
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92381
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92381
Bug ID: 92381
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on negative index with very
large magnitude
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #17 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92374
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why are you configuring GCC with disable-comdat in the first place on an elf
target?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92380
Bug ID: 92380
Summary: Bogus -Warray-bounds warning with structures
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92378
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92341
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tangyixuan at mail dot
dlut.edu.cn
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92378, which changed state.
Bug 92378 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92378
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:17:50AM +, gilles.filippini at free dot fr
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92361
>
> --- Comment #5 from Gilles Filippini ---
> Created attachment 47175
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> The test case was also added to the GCC 9 branch - where it passes without
> requiring a compiler patch.
Spoke to early - it was needed for arm and aarch64 as PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92365
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anbu1024.me at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
After fixing that, there's still a problem, as isn't
installed for freestanding:
In file included from
/home/jwakely/gcc/freestanding/include/c++/10.0.0/version:35,
from :1:
/home/jwakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92277
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Nov 5 14:28:07 2019
New Revision: 277840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 92208 + PR 92277 – GCC 9 follow-up fix
PR fortran/92208
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92208
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Nov 5 14:28:07 2019
New Revision: 277840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 92208 + PR 92277 – GCC 9 follow-up fix
PR fortran/92208
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075
--- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> Author: jason
> Date: Tue Nov 5 11:46:54 2019
> New Revision: 277825
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277825&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92208
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #8)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #7)
> > On gcc-9, the patch introduced regressions, seen on arm and aarch64:
>
> On trunk, the following was needed (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92377
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
... and it started with r235817.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92377
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
Bug ID: 92379
Summary: rs6000.c:5598:13: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is
too large for 64-bit type 'long int'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 5 13:29:52 2019
New Revision: 277832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92280
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
