https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92247
js5506 at columbia dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||js5506 at columbia dot edu
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96563
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96558
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
The internal loop can be simplified a bit:
do
{
long int lf = (long int) f1 ? h1 : 0;
ky += lf;
vh = lf | f1;
f1 = 1;
}
while (vh < (f1 ^ 2));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96072
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
testsuite/gcc.target/s390/20041109-1.c is another similar case which clobbers
SP on PowerPC. Maybe it's time to turn
warning: listing the stack pointer register 'sp' in a clobber list is
deprecated
into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96551
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
For `vec_unpacku_float_hi_v16si` `vec_unpacku_float_lo_v16si`
---
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
index cf083ca28aa..2e60f596bc1 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
+++ b/gcc/confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96164
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96164
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:215927a736d21d8cff8baeb50f687911a00149b9
commit r10-8602-g215927a736d21d8cff8baeb50f687911a00149b9
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96562
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96534
--- Comment #3 from xlwu at synopsys dot com ---
(In reply to xlwu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > (In reply to xlwu from comment #0)
> > > since gcc9, the gcov did not support intermediate format and replace with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96563
Bug ID: 96563
Summary: Failure to optimize loop with condition to simple
arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96534
--- Comment #2 from xlwu at synopsys dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> (In reply to xlwu from comment #0)
> > since gcc9, the gcov did not support intermediate format and replace with
> > json format , our application deeply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88003
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c01b22f12291691d1ce89f82211f00eae4398e18
commit r11-2642-gc01b22f12291691d1ce89f82211f00eae4398e18
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96562
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Egorushkin ---
Correction:
Span f(unsigned char* p, unsigned char* q) {
return {p, static_cast(q - p)};
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96562
Bug ID: 96562
Summary: Rather poor assembly generated for
copy-list-initialization in return statement.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96561
Bug ID: 96561
Summary: missing warning for buffer overflow with negative
offset
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b065f0563262a0d6cd1fea8426913bfdd841301
commit r11-2638-g5b065f0563262a0d6cd1fea8426913bfdd841301
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #6)
> That changed the test to unsupported on the p8 where it had failed
> previously.
[snip]
> # of unsupported tests1
That is what I would expect on a syste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96560
Bug ID: 96560
Summary: Substitution triggers compile-time error when it
shouldn't
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90704
--- Comment #8 from Jörn Heusipp ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jörn Heusipp from comment #5)
> > and just pray and hope that libstdc++ will not change its non-conforming
> > SFINAE-using implementation details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48037
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
We now generate just
sqrtpd %xmm0, %xmm0
for 2 and 4,
sqrtpd (%rdi), %xmm0
for 3, and
movupd (%rdi), %xmm0
sqrtpd %xmm0, %xmm0
for 1 (for alignment reasons I guess, the movu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96559
Bug ID: 96559
Summary: Wrong code with -march=z900 -mtune=z9-109
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50829
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90704
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
btw in practice the fact this is SUSPENDED today is absolutely no different to
the status yesterday. It didn't work in GCC yesterday and it doesn't work
today. The only change is I've publicly stated my int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5da50ed65a835dc1ed6179e3f2b6164fd6e4969
commit r11-2636-ga5da50ed65a835dc1ed6179e3f2b6164fd6e4969
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90704
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jörn Heusipp from comment #5)
> > Status: SUSPENDED
>
> Well, coming from bug 95642, which has been marked as a duplicate of this
> bug, this is *very* disappointing.
>
>
> The C++17 standar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96558
Bug ID: 96558
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2195 (error: insn does not satisfy its
constraints)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #6 from Yevhenii Kolesnikov ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> that patch makes ccp to actually use the bit info ipa-cp determines. Before
> we used it only to detect pointer alignments if I remember correctly. So it
> lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96497
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for 11, I think we should backport to 10.3 too eventually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90704
--- Comment #5 from Jörn Heusipp ---
> Status: SUSPENDED
Well, coming from bug 95642, which has been marked as a duplicate of this bug,
this is *very* disappointing.
The C++17 standard absolutely clearly specifies that the constructor is
over
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 49038
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49038&action=edit
Final reproducer, some 70 lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96557
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That changed the test to unsupported on the p8 where it had failed previously.
Executing on host: /home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/ power10_hw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96557
Bug ID: 96557
Summary: Diagnostics: Can you tell me why it's not a constant
expression?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
When you choose RESOLVED you can pick various types of resolution, FIXED,
INVALID, DUPLICATE, MOVED, WORKSFORME etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96543
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, it's fine. I've categorized it as a diagnostic bug, i.e. a bug in a
warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, I thought this might reveal some new issues :-)
I'll fix it asap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 49037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49037&action=edit
2nd reproducer, single file, shortening further
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96497
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c64df80df274c753bfc8415bd902e1180e76f6a
commit r11-2635-g5c64df80df274c753bfc8415bd902e1180e76f6a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 49036
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49036&action=edit
First reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96556
Bug ID: 96556
Summary: [11.0 regression] ICE via segmentation violation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96555
Bug ID: 96555
Summary: "template argument involves template parameter(s)"
with dot or arrow operator in partial specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93671
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
Likewise, for
unsigned
baz (unsigned int x)
{
if (x >= 4) return 32;
return (-1U >> x) * 16;
}
=== BB 2
x_3(D) unsigned int VARYING
_4 UNDEFINED
:
if (x_3(D) > 3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96482
--- Comment #5 from Yevhenii Kolesnikov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Thank you for the report, I can take a look.
> Can you please provide steps how to build Mesa with -O3 and -flto?
mesa is configured with meson. LTO can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
I think this all goes away when multi-range is enabled.
The original testcase produces:
=== BB 2
x_4(D) unsigned int VARYING
:
tmp_5 = x_4(D) != 0;
_1 = (int) tmp_5;
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96523
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83812
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
See PR 96494.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96494
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
FTR, we could fix this by just mapping onto a nonatomic insn for .local (and
I'm not really sure why ptx doesn't).
But since we have generic pointers, we only known runtime whether something is
local (using i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96494
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> AFAICT, from the point of view of the PTX isa, there's no reason why we
> couldn't support this.
>
> So, unless a testsuite run points to some problem, we should e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96548
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #15 from Roger Wolff ---
I marked it as "resolved', the system then told me to type a message and I did,
but then it had added the "FIXED" tag. Not my idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
--- Comment #4 from Roger Wolff ---
Update: LTO messes with the warning. When LTO is enabled, the warning from
-Wnull-dreference is suppressed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Roger Wolff from comment #11)
> Just FYI: I added -Wnull-dereference to my makefile of my real project. It
> doesn't trigger a warning in my project when I revert to the buggy code. The
> com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 96550 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #13 from Andreas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
--- Comment #2 from Roger Wolff ---
In my case it promotes a function I didn't declare as into
one that and thereby it caused 80% of my code to become
"dead". It'd be nice to differentiate between the case where a simple
optimization removes a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96540
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
Roger Wolff changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96543
--- Comment #2 from Vlad Petric ---
Got it, should I refile/change this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96519
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #11 from Roger Wolff ---
Just FYI: I added -Wnull-dereference to my makefile of my real project. It
doesn't trigger a warning in my project when I revert to the buggy code. The
compiler does detect and act upon the null dereference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #10 from Roger Wolff ---
Technically correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
Bug ID: 96554
Summary: -Wall does not include -Wnull-dereference
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96540
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Does this patch fix the problem?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551660.html
Yes, with that fix (as anticipated by you) build and boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Roger Wolff from comment #6)
> So, I've added "-Wall" to my Makefile to get ALL warnings,
It doesn't enable ALL warnings, as documented in the manual.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #8 from Roger Wolff ---
Please, start to read what is written. Please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Only fixed on master so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94681
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90f7636bf8df50940e0f749af60a6b374a8f09b4
commit r11-2633-g90f7636bf8df50940e0f749af60a6b374a8f09b4
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96553
Bug ID: 96553
Summary: ICE in unexpected expression ‘__alignof__ (auto:1)’ of
kind alignof_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96552
Bug ID: 96552
Summary: GCC accepts "alignas(auto)" in function parameter list
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96551
Bug ID: 96551
Summary: [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/vectorize8.c
(internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The compiler can't diagnose this as an error (unless -Werror* is used), because
it is only an error if such code is ever called at runtime, which the compiler
can't determine at compile time.
That is why it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #6 from Roger Wolff ---
So, I've added "-Wall" to my Makefile to get ALL warnings, giving me the
biggest chance of finding bugs through the compiler telling me you have a bug
on line X of file Y.
So IMHO -Wnull-dereference should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #5 from Roger Wolff ---
Guys, The compiler found a bug in my code, but it didn't tell me. Like the if
(a = 3) situation, the compiler is correct when it compiles the code according
to the C rules.
I like to compile my code with -Wal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96466
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96453
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.3.1
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Roger Wolff from comment #0)
> So... without saying anything the compiler decided that my function will
> never return. It might be right about that (That's not true: This is on an
> embedded s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93904
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If FAIL is defined, your myfunc will always trigger undefined behavior if
called, and as such anything can happen.
Derefencing NULL is UB.
If you are on an embedded system where there is memory mapped, you ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Does -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96550
Bug ID: 96550
Summary: gcc is smart in figuring out a non-returning function.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95749
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95749
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also fixed on master by g:9939be5758b52ed2fe1a7e56b94ce6d0f4d81580 but I'm not
sure why that didn't get added here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95749
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:caac3ee7008286404323c4aa93ee0e1c4753c4c2
commit r9-8800-gcaac3ee7008286404323c4aa93ee0e1c4753c4c2
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95749
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5cc5c95664347082100a504710f5ca0467306a5
commit r10-8600-gb5cc5c95664347082100a504710f5ca0467306a5
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95235
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Glisse :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:287522613d661b4c5ba8403b051eb470c1674cba
commit r11-2629-g287522613d661b4c5ba8403b051eb470c1674cba
Author: Marc Glisse
Date: Mon Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for COND_EXPR, if we do it that way, it should be rather keyed on a range
with only two possible values in the range.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
