https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94953
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94924
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Erich Keane changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erich.keane at intel dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #44 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This commit also introduces bug 94963 which breaks the glibc build (and is
*not* fixed by the commit that fixed bug 94949).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94963
Bug ID: 94963
Summary: [11 Regression] Spurious uninitialized warning for
static variable building glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962
Bug ID: 94962
Summary: Suboptimal AVX2 code for
_mm256_zextsi128_si256(_mm_set1_epi8(-1))
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90212
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04b89192ace3a766a17374d5bef8fb19d9be2d7c
commit r11-122-g04b89192ace3a766a17374d5bef8fb19d9be2d7c
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
g:1a289fa36294627c252492e4c18d7877a7c80dc1 changed that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually it might be better to make it out to a function and use that in both
places, otherwise I'm either duplicating code or it's just too ugly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84324
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84324
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0aed8d5ba77e0756f3c9ebcd65eba1bfb11f24b
commit r11-121-gd0aed8d5ba77e0756f3c9ebcd65eba1bfb11f24b
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Tue May 5 13:35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93366
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a26ea7e0f8b9a00a2eb0a5e8f70efa04056f167
commit r11-120-g5a26ea7e0f8b9a00a2eb0a5e8f70efa04056f167
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94961
Bug ID: 94961
Summary: [11 regression] internal compiler error: in
df_refs_verify, at df-scan.c:4002
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94960
Bug ID: 94960
Summary: extern template prevents inlining of standard library
objects
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94913
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 48458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48458&action=edit
Prototype patch
Prototype patch for missed optimization, described in Comment #0.
Following testcase:
--cut her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, omp_declare_variant_finalize_one. I think I'll do something similar, but
not the same: if we see a CALL_EXPR whose CALL_EXPR_FN is a BASELINK, we know
it's not the std::is_constant_evaluated call we're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94937
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
struct B {
static constexpr bool foo() { return false; }
};
template
struct C {
static void bar ()
{
if constexpr (B::foo()) ;
}
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #37 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #35)
> There is no such place. Dead code is identified in the middle-end and by
> then, there is no parse tree, only GIMPLE and SSA:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #36 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #34)
>
> The front ends can eliminate simple subexpressions (as in '0 ? x >> 32 : x
> >> 1') but they don't do the same for statements. Moving the warning from
> the fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another option would be to fold FFS (x) for x known non-zero into CTZ (x) + 1
in match.pd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Mastellone ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> There is very little we can do without a minimum example that shows the
> problem. What you have attached cannot be compiled by anyone as
> deallocate_vars.f90 conta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
--- Comment #35 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Niels Möller from comment #32)
> 1. There's similar code in c_fully_fold_internal, in gcc/c/c-fold.c, close
> to line 400. But that code does *not* emit any warning for the example
> above,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94959
SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sripar01 at gcc dot
gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94959
Bug ID: 94959
Summary: Wrong code gen for MVE intrinsics vldrbq_s32 which
fails with assembler `Error: lo register required`
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94943
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fanfarillo.gcc at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958
Bug ID: 94958
Summary: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:9797: possible typo ?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Summary|[10 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94936
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 48455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48455&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-05
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|should not warning with |should not warn in dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94957
Bug ID: 94957
Summary: Compilation slowww for simple code with -O1/2/3 and -g
in GCC 8 and 9
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #1 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Sorry, truncated the assembler. GCC's is:
atum17:~> objdump --disassemble test.o
test.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Bug ID: 94956
Summary: Unable to remove impossible ffs() test for zero
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955
Bug ID: 94955
Summary: ICE in to_wide
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48453&action=edit
gcc11-pr94921.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Created attachment 48451 [details]
> gcc11-pr94873.patch
>
> Untested patch then.
This one-liner is pre-approved. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94807
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954
Bug ID: 94954
Summary: Wrong code generation for vec_pack_to_short_fp32
builtin for Power
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] gnutls |[10 Regression] gnutls test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94953
Bug ID: 94953
Summary: A lot of false maybe-uninitialized warnings with O3
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d44f14ccef831d90feb57fab56bc3389d543ffdd
commit r11-87-gd44f14ccef831d90feb57fab56bc3389d543ffdd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] Calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef3479afc5ab415f00a53fc6f6a990df7f6a0747
commit r11-86-gef3479afc5ab415f00a53fc6f6a990df7f6a0747
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90749
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Fixed on trunk by r11-17-g82d5decef38b5562d97c49a70ca2636a08769dbc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:811b7636cb8c10f1a550a76242b5666c7ae36da2
commit r11-85-g811b7636cb8c10f1a550a76242b5666c7ae36da2
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0532db47d092430f8e8f497b2dc53343527bb13
commit r11-84-gc0532db47d092430f8e8f497b2dc53343527bb13
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d39f7dc8d558ca31a661b02d08ff090ce65e6652
commit r11-83-gd39f7dc8d558ca31a661b02d08ff090ce65e6652
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90591
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Somewhat related: In terms of OpenMP (to be refined in the spec), the following
applies (in order to work both with shared + nonshared memory):
int x = 5;
#pragma omp target map(from:x)
x = 7;
prin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94330
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f62caf58b5d11f375f789385d6d49891ebd9a94
commit r11-81-g0f62caf58b5d11f375f789385d6d49891ebd9a94
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94636
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94636
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab37baa60ef287c0f5ba9eaa067aa3192b9fb37e
commit r11-79-gab37baa60ef287c0f5ba9eaa067aa3192b9fb37e
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 92472, which changed state.
Bug 92472 Summary: enhancement: 5 * constify some parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 89860, which changed state.
Bug 89860 Summary: liboffloadmic/runtime/offload_target.cpp:332]: (style) Array
index 'i' is used before limits check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Why is it missing the static keyword then? (Or alternatively, why isn't it in
> an anonymous namespace?)
Huh? Without the warning developers may simply forget to put the 'static'
keyword. With the war
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 92565, which changed state.
Bug 92565 Summary: trunk/libgcc/config/libbid/bid_internal.h: 2 * useless
assignments ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03f9754665b889e0988d0392db1eb35e91b97693
commit r11-76-g03f9754665b889e0988d0392db1eb35e91b97693
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89860
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98f7381d17a1ad47773b70a5de7d94a164357916
commit r11-75-g98f7381d17a1ad47773b70a5de7d94a164357916
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d73d45f19180a474b1bd3af3c9cdf52da3bafc78
commit r11-74-gd73d45f19180a474b1bd3af3c9cdf52da3bafc78
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92565
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b33430b53b2a884f177f1d9b40ed840e07240c5
commit r11-73-g8b33430b53b2a884f177f1d9b40ed840e07240c5
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Tue Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the array isn't needed either:
struct A { int a; };
template
struct B : public A
{
static B foo () { B t; t.a = 4; return t; }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly simplified testcase:
struct A { unsigned a[32]; };
template
struct B : public A
{
static B foo () { B t; t.a[0] = 4; return t; }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0
Summary|[10/11 regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3fbf43b9bc060e2904abe64e870868b9a4bfce13
commit r11-71-g3fbf43b9bc060e2904abe64e870868b9a4bfce13
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94743
--- Comment #16 from Christophe Lyon ---
Another potential issue just came to my mind: what if the IRQ handler is
compiled with -mfloat-abi=soft but calls a function compiled with
-mfloat-abi=softfp? We have no way to guess that the FP registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> > Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to
> > -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91972
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Transition to C++ did not change -Wmissing-prototypes to
> -Wmissing-declarations, so over time several violations crept in. In
> particular this penalizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> which means we are actually vectorizing a multiplication. Like with
> the following. Rainer - can you test this?
[...]
Works for me: te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #43 from Tamar Christina ---
Oh, that was quick, thanks! I was looking at the log for another commit against
this PR so missed it :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9b5db750bc7fbba69fee93564907f7da1bca35f
commit r11-70-gf9b5db750bc7fbba69fee93564907f7da1bca35f
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #42 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 May 2020, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
>
> Tamar Christina changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94921
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=94940
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think array_at_struct_end_p conservatively returns true for p->a[i] though.
Indeed all calls to the function return the correct value. So is it somebody
invented a "more clever" variant of said check? Or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94947
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> In fact this situation doesn't seem to be handled at all - global variables
> are still an afterthought in IPA-PTA it seems. Needs more work than a
> simple fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 regression] ICE in |[8/9/10/11 regression] ICE
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
