https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91396
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to ctice from comment #5)
> Author: ctice
> Date: Tue Aug 13 16:11:20 2019
> New Revision: 274386
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274386&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix PR other/91396 stati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92398
--- Comment #6 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
Power9 genrates different code than Power8LE is because of reg cost in sched1,
r120 from P9 of instruction 8 is a memory instruction while r120 of P8 of
instruction 13 is not, which will cause different reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92491
--- Comment #4 from zhaobo at huawei dot com ---
will try it .
Currently I manually delete three generated dirs : aarch64*, host* , build* ,
and recompile the project .
It succeeded now .
Thanks.
Regards,
Bob
-邮件原件-
发件人: pinskia at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92491
--- Comment #2 from zhaobo at huawei dot com ---
I work on the same dir to execute below two commands in sequence.
./configure --enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--disable-multilib
make;
Regards,
Bob
-邮件原件-
发件人
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92491
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92491
Bug ID: 92491
Summary: when compile for gfortran on hisilicon Kunpeng920 , it
reports error and terminate the compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92487
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
By the way, if I removed the check_vect and result verification code, the
vectorized version perform very slightly better than non-vectorized version.
And yes, I think it was a bit off before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> What is the testcase testing? Whether we can properly vectorize this
> code, right? And for p7 we now do it correctly, but thought it was
> too expensive befor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92465
--- Comment #2 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Author: guojiufu
Date: Wed Nov 13 05:04:22 2019
New Revision: 278112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add option -fweb for pr47763.c
This case is testing 'web' on ignore nake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92490
Bug ID: 92490
Summary: ’std::stringstream‘ will let the program exit directly
and report exit code 127
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92489
--- Comment #1 from kunalsareen at posteo dot org ---
Created attachment 47229
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47229&action=edit
Debug log using -gnatd.n switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92489
Bug ID: 92489
Summary: GNAT Bug for Invalid_Value Attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84007
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92369
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478
--- Comment #3 from John X ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started to ICE with r247622, got fixed with r262742.
Would the ICE in gcc-8 be fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478
--- Comment #2 from John X ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started to ICE with r247622, got fixed with r262742.
Thanks~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92465
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
-funroll-loops no longer implies -fweb and -frename-registers, for powerpc,
since those options hurt performance and never seem to help.
The testcase can be fixed by simply explicitly passing -fweb?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I've bootstrapped the patch and am going to commit it.
Thanks, in meanwhile I bootstrapped it too :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus ---
If the actual argument is itself optional but without value attribute,
gfc_conv_expr_present returns a 'logical_type_node' (default-integer size,
typically 4 bytes type) instead of a boolean_type_node (1 byt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92369
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This looks pretty much like a duplicate of PR84007.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92488
Bug ID: 92488
Summary: GCC generates to calls to __dpd_trunctdsd2 with
-mhard-dfp
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89408
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||SztfG at yandex dot ru
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92487
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>So this is some GNU extension, but why GCC doesn't support it?
Because it was undocumented one which was removed a long time ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92487
Bug ID: 92487
Summary: case label error when label is made from character of
C string
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92485
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92189
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47227&action=edit
Minor cleanup patch for trans-decl.c's convert_CFI_desc
I think there many issues:
(A) For assumed-shape/assum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92485
--- Comment #4 from Alexey Dobriyan ---
I'm not familiar with project's backporting policies.
FWIW, this bug break Linux scheduler compilation with g++,
which is a big deal for me! :^)
CC kernel/sched/idle.o
In file included from arch/x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92485
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92485
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: anlauf
Date: Tue Nov 12 21:14:19 2019
New Revision: 278105
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278105&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-12 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/81651
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92454
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92449
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Nov 12 21:05:24 2019
New Revision: 278104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite: Add testcases for PR92449
PR target/92449
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92486
Bug ID: 92486
Summary: Wrong optimization: padding in structs is not copied
even with memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92485
--- Comment #1 from Alexey Dobriyan ---
g++ 8.3.0 doesn't crash
g++ 9.1.0 crashes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92485
Bug ID: 92485
Summary: g++ ICE unexpected expression '' of kind
asm_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92484
Bug ID: 92484
Summary: In tree build of ISL 0.22 fails: requires C++11
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #36 from Tomasz Kłoczko ---
Thanks for update.
Please let me know when you will have working version of your patch.
I have ready to use gcc build in which after about two hours (my gcc compile
time) I would be able to to try to help
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92470
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Nov 12 19:33:10 2019
New Revision: 278101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278101&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/92470 Fixes for CFI_address
libgfortran/
PR f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92471
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Nov 12 19:31:04 2019
New Revision: 278100
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278100&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/92471
* ipa-profile.c (check_argument_count): Break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92471
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92412
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 12 18:49:31 2019
New Revision: 278099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278099&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92412 - excessive errno aliasing assumption defeats
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065
Rolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rolf.h.myhre at ntnu dot no
--- Comment #2 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92483
Bug ID: 92483
Summary: [10 Regression] many jit test failures due to ABRT,
SEGV
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482
Bug ID: 92482
Summary: Possibly wrong error diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92481
Bug ID: 92481
Summary: g++ 9.2.0 SegFault
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92464
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What is the testcase testing? Whether we can properly vectorize this
code, right? And for p7 we now do it correctly, but thought it was
too expensive before?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47223
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47223&action=edit
-fdump-rtl-expand for test case in comment 9, compiled on
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu using -O0 (it doesn't f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #35 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Any progress on that issue?
> Just hit that issue trying to build NetworkManager
>
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/issues/278
I am working on a patch for symver attribute, ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92398
--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The assembler mismatches on power 7 and power 9 date way, way back at least
into early 2019. The short span where the test case failed to work at all
threw me off. Sorry about that!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #8 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for spotting that. For whatever reason,
* trans-decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl): Assumed shape and assumed
rank dummies of bind C procs require deferred initialization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92480
Hannes Hauswedell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug 84774 depends on bug 83688, which changed state.
Bug 83688 Summary: Please check if buffers may overlap when copying strings
using sprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83688
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 12 17:18:37 2019
New Revision: 278098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83688 - check if buffers may overlap when copying strings us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 12 17:18:37 2019
New Revision: 278098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83688 - check if buffers may overlap when copying strings u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
> atomic_cmpxchg_func tries to cast 'dest' from uint8_t* to int*
I made a typo here, I meant uint32_t rather than uint8_t, and there's no
aliasing violation here as signedness difference is explicitly O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
Optimized dump is:
void * c_bptr;
void * c_aptr;
real(kind=8) * bptr;
real(kind=8) bb;
real(kind=8) * aptr;
real(kind=8) aa;
real(kind=8) aa.1_1;
real(kind=8) bb.2_2;
:
aa.1_1 = aa;
bb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
The callee is:
>
and the hidden argument (_c_aptr) is:
constant 1>
which both look fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92480
Bug ID: 92480
Summary: Parameters in consteval functions should be constant
expressions.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #8)
In gdb [GNU gdb (Ubuntu 7.7.1-0ubuntu5~14.04.3) 7.7.1], which is really not the
newest, I get:
(gdb) pt c_aptr
type =
and stepping in, gives (all variables shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92305
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #6)
> On powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
I can reproduce it on a powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu w/o real offloading. It
fails here for subroutine test_dummy_opt_val_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92398
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code for Wunreachable-code was removed a long time ago (around 5-10 years
ago).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
Bug ID: 92479
Summary: missing warnings for unreachable codes with
-Wunreachable-code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, feel free to file it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89070
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Tomasz Kłoczko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kloczko.tomasz at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Note, starting with r273603, the trunk doesn't tail call optimize this
> either even without -fsanitize=, unless -fno-tree-sra.
Is there a report for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89070
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||src at andyf dot de
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, starting with r273603, the trunk doesn't tail call optimize this either
even without -fsanitize=, unless -fno-tree-sra.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88952
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92470
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92478
Bug ID: 92478
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92473
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 47222
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47222&action=edit
patch
Testing the following (on x86_64), inspected aarch64 code to be correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92430
--- Comment #5 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Tue Nov 12 14:24:35 2019
New Revision: 278095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Free dominance info at the beginning of pass_jump_after_combine
try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Sadly no.
I am happy for anyone else to pick up my suggested patches and
post them.
There were about 35 style messages of type "constParameter" produced
for gcc trunk. I'll have a look at which other o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92477
Bug ID: 92477
Summary: [[nodiscard]] method in a decltype expression causes
"warning: ignoring return value of"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Can you post the patch (and separate out the libstdc++ parts)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92473
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced C testcase:
__attribute__((noipa)) void
quux (unsigned long x)
{
static int cnt;
unsigned long v = cnt++ ? 6 : 0;
if (x != v)
__builtin_abort ();
}
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (const ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
--- Comment #9 from Aleksei Voitylov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> The full preprocessed source is provided and it clearly says
>
> typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
>
> in line 10, so it is in fact a character type.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92462
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92476
Bug ID: 92476
Summary: [10 regression] SEGV in cgraph_edge_brings_value_p
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92466
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92475
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You're right, sorry for not checking 9 and 10 properly. I also see it working
again after r263875.
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
