https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97408
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-15
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97435
Bug ID: 97435
Summary: Lifetime of temporaries not correctly extending when
optiimzation are enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
...which should also fix Bug 96241 so these in fact are duplicates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
This ought to fix it, though it's completely untested:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -3661,6 +3661,10 @@ cxx_eval_array_reference (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree
t,
{
tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
And that also means that this:
enum E : int { F };
struct X {
E e{F};
};
constexpr X x[1]{};
constexpr auto
foo ()
{
return x[0].e;
}
constexpr auto a = foo ();
started to ICE earlier, since r10-6437
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
--- Comment #2 from Yoshinori Sato ---
Since 0x296318e8 is data, we need to investigate where we jumped.
The backtrace looks normal, so I think you're getting anomalous jumps when
optimizing long_richcompare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
A test without a lambda that ICEs with -std=c++14 too:
enum E : int { F };
struct X {
E e{F};
};
constexpr X x[1];
auto
foo ()
{
return x[0].e;
}
Note that we don't ICE if the X's member is changed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97434
Bug ID: 97434
Summary: Missed dead code optimization from data flow analysis
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
--- Comment #1 from Rich Felker ---
Do you have a complete disassembly of the function it crashed in and register
dump at the point of crash? That would help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97433
Bug ID: 97433
Summary: C++20 Coroutines, Unexpected reordering of
await_resume, return_value and yield_value
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97432
--- Comment #1 from Ray Zhang ---
Providing more context with the first example (also applies for the rest):
1) // pointer to array - works in clang (trunk),
// works in gcc (trunk)
reinterpret_cast(x);
T1: const pointer to const point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97432
Bug ID: 97432
Summary: Casting away constness in the drafts [conv.qual] a
cv-decomposition exists in the following examples but
fails in gcc
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431
Bug ID: 97431
Summary: [SH] Python crashes with 'Segmentation fault with
-finline-small-functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
URL: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[10/11 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430
Bug ID: 97430
Summary: internal compiler error: in verify_ctor_sanity, at
cp/constexpr.c:3884
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #14 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #13)
> https://godbolt.org/z/fqGrz1
>
> After this patch, the assembly generated is much better now. However, it
> still contains many optimization problems.
>
> The problem i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #13 from fdlbxtqi ---
https://godbolt.org/z/fqGrz1
After this patch, the assembly generated is much better now. However, it still
contains many optimization problems.
The problem is the code like this.
Let's just walk through the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97391
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 97391, which changed state.
Bug 97391 Summary: [11 Regression] bogus -Warray-bounds accessing a
multidimensional array parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97391
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97413
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97391
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14d83c6f584c321989b43526dc9437de4381aa47
commit r11-3901-g14d83c6f584c321989b43526dc9437de4381aa47
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97413
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34efa5c2a84a8c7c7beb855dec24a321eebcbd6b
commit r11-3900-g34efa5c2a84a8c7c7beb855dec24a321eebcbd6b
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #25 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #21)
> Maybe gcc compiling itself with the analyzer might find some bugs, too.
I tried this and all I found were AFAIK false positives.
Perhaps someone with more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92422
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #24 from David Malcolm ---
As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556203.html
I was able to bootstrap using the method described in comment #0, albeit taking
7 hours (compared to the 45 minutes it normally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
Bug 93388 depends on bug 93723, which changed state.
Bug 93723 Summary: ICEs building ada with -fanalyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97412
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97429
Bug ID: 97429
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a
pointer to array
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61a43de58cb6de7212a622060500ad0a0fd94fae
commit r11-3896-g61a43de58cb6de7212a622060500ad0a0fd94fae
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:12b267cc606a48a2fef809189c35573c4a51d3a5
commit r11-3895-g12b267cc606a48a2fef809189c35573c4a51d3a5
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:974e3975c5bd14ee8817f892532d1e55492227df
commit r11-3894-g974e3975c5bd14ee8817f892532d1e55492227df
Author: David Malcolm
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97060
--- Comment #13 from Jiri Olsa ---
hi,
any update on the fix? I'm seeing the bug now in fedora 32 with:
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 10.2.1 20201005 (Red Hat 10.2.1-5)
thanks,
jirka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> > > This doesn't look valid to me. In
> > >
> > > [x...] { x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:270c5a982ccb4ef83bd9ad37d39cf47461acb55a
commit r11-3893-g270c5a982ccb4ef83bd9ad37d39cf47461acb55a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428
Bug ID: 97428
Summary: -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex
arrays, but horrible one step above the basic
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> This doesn't look valid to me. In
>
> [x...] { x; }...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358#c3 is what they actually
have (not sure if it cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] aarch64: |aarch64: Wrong code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97427
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97427
Bug ID: 97427
Summary: constexpr destructor for const object incorrectly
rejected as modifying const object
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
This doesn't look valid to me. In
[x...] { x; }...
we capture the entire pack, but then try to use only a single element. This
should be rejected because the use of x in the lambda body is not expanded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95483
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93103603fd66a9fcf3ea2d8b52657e4b2496f544
commit r11-3891-g93103603fd66a9fcf3ea2d8b52657e4b2496f544
Author: Sunil K Pandey
Date: Wed Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If what clang++ does with the copy ctors is right, then what firefox does is
inefficient and
[aSpecialValueMappers](const SpecialConstant& aSpecialValue) {
return ErrorResult{aSpecialValueMappers(aS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85901
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
Also, I wonder what the final value of copy_counter should be in the below
testcase (assuming it's valid):
static int copy_counter;
struct S {
S() = default;
S(const S&) { ++copy_counter; }
};
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Petr Sumbera from comment #5)
> > Is there any workaround for this issue?
>
> I guess replacing that
> [aSpecialValueMappers...](const SpecialConsta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78198b6021a9695054dab039340202170b88423c
commit r11-3889-g78198b6021a9695054dab039340202170b88423c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89161
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
This should be resolved once the sprintf + strlen pass is converted to the new
Ranger implementation sometime in the coming weeks (hopefully).
In the meantime, changing the controlling expression in the if st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97426
Bug ID: 97426
Summary: [11 regression] new test case gcc.dg/ipa/modref-1.c
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97425
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
In addition to the bounds in the array type the subscript in some of the
warnings issued for array parameters isn't right.
$ cat z.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -fdump-tree-vrp1=/dev/stdout z.c
void f (void)
{
exte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97425
Bug ID: 97425
Summary: bogus array bounds in -Warray-bounds for a function
array parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71424
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tangyixuan at mail dot
dlut.edu.cn
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97422
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
Indeed, Martin Sebor has suggested that it would have to be coupled with
__builtin_warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01015.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #12 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #11)
> The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06bec55e80d98419121f3998d98d969990a75b0b
>
> commit r11-3882-g06bec55e80d98419121f399
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96813
Bug 96813 depends on bug 96818, which changed state.
Bug 96818 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 at -O
since r11-2883
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96822
Bug 96822 depends on bug 96818, which changed state.
Bug 96818 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 at -O
since r11-2883
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Ah...it can be closed.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 17:58 jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
>
> --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424
Bug ID: 97424
Summary: Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96818
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Is this bug still "WAITING" for something?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97381
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod ---
in particular:
_2 = (int) c_8;
_3 = _2 * 148372120;
_4 = a.0_1 / _3;
if (_4 != 0)
we do not wind back thru divides at the moment (unless they are exact divides)
so when processing the false edge t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Petr Sumbera from comment #5)
> Is there any workaround for this issue?
I guess replacing that
[aSpecialValueMappers...](const SpecialConstant& aSpecialValue) {
with
[=](const SpecialConstant& a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97378
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
>
>
>
> The division by zero was product of various transformations. Basically we
> know that a.0_1 is 0, so we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
--- Comment #5 from Petr Sumbera ---
Is there any workaround for this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97423
--- Comment #2 from Petr Sumbera ---
Created attachment 49373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49373&action=edit
test case
Just for record. I have tried to prepare test case. Attached is preprocessed
test case. Following comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06bec55e80d98419121f3998d98d969990a75b0b
commit r11-3882-g06bec55e80d98419121f3998d98d969990a75b0b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sumbera at volny dot cz
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97423
Bug ID: 97423
Summary: internal compiler error in gcc-10.2.0/gcc/toplev.c:328
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97396
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97359
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
There is no need to cache non-logical operands. Processing a relational such as
<,>,<=,>= is a linear process, and therefore we never needed to cache them.
&& and || is exponential as we have to evaluate
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97396
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a121715bcab6e8980768d142b9781c45821130ac
commit r11-3880-ga121715bcab6e8980768d142b9781c45821130ac
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96759
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kito at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
> So maybe try bisecting/reproducing with -fno-strict-aliasing?
Ah, yes, I can reproduce before that revision with -fno-strict-aliasing. I'll
re-bisect, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It was https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01260.html with
relevant followups from Eric in May.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #5 from Steve Fink ---
Created attachment 49372
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49372&action=edit
backtrace of crash
Note that the invalid_nonstatic_memfn_p in the attached crash stack seems
bogus. Here's a backt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
So maybe try bisecting/reproducing with -fno-strict-aliasing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #4 from Steve Fink ---
Created attachment 49371
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49371&action=edit
crash stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419
--- Comment #3 from Steve Fink ---
This invokes decl_as_string(decl, TFF_DECL_SPECIFIERS | TFF_CHASE_TYPEDEF)
TREE_CODE(decl) is FUNCTION_DECL.
dump_function_decl(decl) is attempting to render the return type of the
function. It's in a local va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97422
Bug ID: 97422
Summary: gcc rejects 'std::initializer_list' when instantiating
with a list
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97421
Bug ID: 97421
Summary: [10/11 Regression] aarch64: Wrong code with -O2
-fmodulo-sched since r10-1318-ga7e8a46
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::find_if has existed since C++98.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97390
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4aa9742252ea419947fe32ff64c7546c92286b96
commit r11-3875-g4aa9742252ea419947fe32ff64c7546c92286b96
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: We
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
