https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97329
--- Comment #2 from Kip Warner ---
Sorry, not same issue. It appears as though this was fixed in gcc-11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97329
Kip Warner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.2.0 |11.0
--- Comment #1 from Kip Warner ---
Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #21 from Luke Dashjr ---
Not entirely, I think? At least according to the docs:
if you wish to enable built-in functions selectively when using
-fno-builtin or -ffreestanding, you may define macros such as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1c62aec6751678e958ab5c61b2d903a09d7efd9
commit r11-3714-gc1c62aec6751678e958ab5c61b2d903a09d7efd9
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96229
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b1b5c255f859e75a2d74ae58a011e846d87a277
commit r11-3713-g6b1b5c255f859e75a2d74ae58a011e846d87a277
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96575
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97329
Bug ID: 97329
Summary: POWER9 default cache and line sizes appear to be wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97328
Bug ID: 97328
Summary: [ICE] internal compiler error: in verify_ctor_sanity,
at cp/constexpr.c:3995
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #20 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Similarly:
-mcpu=cortex-m55+nomve -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=softfp
cc1: warning: switch '-mcpu=cortex-m55' conflicts with '-march=armv8.1-m.main'
switch
-mcpu=cortex-m55+nomve -march=armv8.1-m.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97327
Bug ID: 97327
Summary: -mcpu=cortex-m55 warns without -mfloat-abi=hard or
-march=armv8.1-m.main
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97322
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Thanks, this patch does fix both builds for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Please see PR96983 for the fallout.
Note that my bandaid fix was rejected in favor of a "real solution" for
powerpc*. See the other PR and the Fortran ML for background.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97010
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:635072248a426c933c74ef4431e82401249b6218
commit r11-3709-g635072248a426c933c74ef4431e82401249b6218
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, yes I can, I messed up my test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can't get the algorithm to ever produce an intermediate result that doesn't
fit in 32 bits, so I'm not sure there's actually a problem here in practice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96805
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see how manually written arithmetic with explicit % operations is going
to beat using built-in types that do that automatically.
If 64-bit arithmetic is faster than 32-bit arithmetic, I would expec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kristian Spangsege from comment #3)
> bonus, the code will work on platforms that do not have std::uint32_t.
GCC doesn't work on such platforms, and other parts of libstdc++ already assume
it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188
--- Comment #12 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #11)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 49293 [details]
> > supergraph
>
> Thanks. Compared to my testing, I'm seeing what appear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Tobler ---
First, excuse me Thomas, I was focused on 'Tobias' from the description text.
It seems to pass bootstrap with /usr/bin/ld on FreeBSD-13. The test suite will
tell more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #6 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
when using gcc10.2 to compile our application, we have the same compilation
error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97326
Bug ID: 97326
Summary: [11 Regression] s390: ICE in do_store_flag after
10843f830350
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97052
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Looking at the evrp dump, I see
> EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
> EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
> EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
>
> Value rang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amacleod at redhat dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at the evrp dump, I see
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
Value ranges after Early VRP:
_1: short unsigned int VARYING
_2: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #3 from Kristian Spangsege ---
I would recommend not locking arithmetic to std::uint32_t, and instead working
with std::uint_fast32_t, because I can imaging a platform (current or future)
where 32-bit arithmetic is slower that 64-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96355
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96531
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||src at andyf dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Tobler ---
Hi Tobias,
on FreeBSD-12.1, the ld is from binutils 2.17, a really old one.
Try to configure with '--with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --with-ld=/usr/local/bin/ld
'. Prerequisite is the installation of the binutil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
ing-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 11.0.0 20201007 (experimental) (GCC)
It triggers also on different targets, such as:
$ aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-latest-aarc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amacleod at redhat dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97324
Bug ID: 97324
Summary: -mcpu= isn't validated on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On October 7, 2020 5:30:14 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
>
>Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On October 7, 2020 5:35:02 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
>
>--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod ---
>(In reply to David Binder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97323
Bug ID: 97323
Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE 'verify_type' failed on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |bootstrap
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97279
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97294
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note I'm afraid we can't put the testcase into GCC testsuite easily, because we
have testsuite for libgomp and testsuite for asan, but don't have *.exp to link
against both libraries at their build locations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97294
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=97315
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> I get something similar with this test case:
>
> int a;
> void b() {
> if (a >= 2147483647)
> c(a + 1);
> }
This one is slightly different.
Still trig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
OK, there are a couple of things at play in this PR.
The original problem isn't actually unreachable code. well, sort of.
The pass determines something is unreachable and changes the condition, which
me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab ---
Any ICE is a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #18)
> Any ICE is a bug.
If powerpc64 does not have REAL(16), then you'll need
to xfail the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97322
Bug ID: 97322
Summary: [11 regression] ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at
stor-layout.c:404 on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97322
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin B. Meier ---
Thanks for the super quick reaction:)!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #18 from Andreas Schwab ---
Any ICE is a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dae673abd37d400408959497e50fe1f3fbef5533
commit r11-3705-gdae673abd37d400408959497e50fe1f3fbef5533
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:19:18AM +, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab ---
> On powerpc64:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error)
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97273
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
commit r11-3704-g592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
commit r11-3704-g592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97307
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The patch will cause
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "LOOP VECTORIZED" 2
since the testcase has exactly such a pattern:
unsigned int
condition_reduction (unsigned int *a, unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93606
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95263
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31775
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10)
> Created attachment 49293 [details]
> supergraph
Thanks. Compared to my testing, I'm seeing what appear to be differences in
the inputs to the analyzer at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97321
Bug ID: 97321
Summary: add warning for pointer casts that may lead to
aliasing violation when dereferenced
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c7e841806aecf4187c69fc2ff07813c7be09582
commit r11-3702-g7c7e841806aecf4187c69fc2ff07813c7be09582
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Wed O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97110
Bug 97110 depends on bug 97116, which changed state.
Bug 97116 Summary: Fix argument numbering in C++ member function calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f7c50b7091c09d665aaf27173aacf34c9904e4c
commit r11-3701-g2f7c50b7091c09d665aaf27173aacf34c9904e4c
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or something like:
auto __b = [__begin, __n](size_t __i) -> _Type& {
return __begin[__i % __n];
};
auto __b32 = [__b](size_t __i) { return (uint32_t)__b(__i); };
for (siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320
Bug ID: 97320
Summary: False positive "Array reference out of bounds in loop"
in a protecting if block
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97311
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97312
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97319
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97319
Bug ID: 97319
Summary: LTO profiledbootstrap (C/C++/Fotran only) fails with a
segfault in selftest
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e089e43365f7f2a90979e2316aea25d44823f5a3
commit r11-3698-ge089e43365f7f2a90979e2316aea25d44823f5a3
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
I get something similar with this test case:
int a;
void b() {
if (a >= 2147483647)
c(a + 1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
operator_cast::op1_range() is creating a range with swapped operands here:
// And union this with the entire outer types negative range.
int_range_max neg (type,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> EVRP knows to "skip" unreachable edges. Not sure how you even "ask" EVRP
> for values in unreachable blocks? It's lattice does never reflect its state?
Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
EVRP knows to "skip" unreachable edges. Not sure how you even "ask" EVRP for
values in unreachable blocks? It's lattice does never reflect its state?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #1)
> Seeing a similar ICE with the following simple C testcase:
>
> int a;
> int b(signed char c, int d) { return c < 0 ? 0 : c >> d; }
> void e(void)
> {
> for (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97290
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Intel ifort and ifx accept the test case without errors.
They both accept
pointer pi
integer :: pi=>null()
and
integer :: pi=>null()
pointer pi
Anyway, it's easy to transfom it into
integer, pointer ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
evrp and ranger disagree on the singleton range for _3 in the following stmt:
:
if (_3 != 1)
(gdb) ptg evrp_ret
0
(gdb) ptg ranger_ret
1
Which is interesting because BB5 is actually unreachable:
add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> The patch causes g++.dg/vect/simd-bool-comparison-1.cc to FAIL because
> it will result in signed BOOLEAN_TYPEs with precision 1 rejected. Those we
> use for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97292
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It also reproduces on Haswell x86_64 (czery).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-07
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97318
Bug ID: 97318
Summary: [nvptx] Function splitting results in invalid function
name
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build||x86_64-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97317
Bug ID: 97317
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at
value-range.cc:369
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97295
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97315
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95582
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The patch causes g++.dg/vect/simd-bool-comparison-1.cc to FAIL because
it will result in signed BOOLEAN_TYPEs with precision 1 rejected. Those we
use for build_nonstandard_boolean_type via
#0 0x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97305
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97316
Bug ID: 97316
Summary: config/libbid/bid64_noncomp.c: 7 * pointless test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
