https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98981
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
With this testcase
extern void sub2 (void);
void
sub (int *i, int *j)
{
int k = *i + 1;
*j = k;
if (k == 0)
sub2 ();
}
Compiling without the riscv_rtx_cost patch, I get
lw a5,0(a0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99072
--- Comment #4 from Boris Kolpackov ---
You need to use different .ii file names on the first and second header unit
builds. Using your original command lines as a reference:
# first build of header-unit
devvm1702:45>./xg++ [...] -o 99072_a.ii 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99067
--- Comment #3 from bin cheng ---
Though not sure if the underlying root causes are the same, I think these are
two different issues, at least, they are handled by different parts of code in
IVOPTs.
For the first one, it's a known issue in GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99092
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From the ARM ARM:
An assembler program translating a Load/Store instruction, for example LDR, is
required to encode an unambiguous offset using the unscaled 9-bit offset
form, and to encode an ambiguous off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99092
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
hmmm, see https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg00612.html :
"When it comes to emitting the pattern, always use "prfm" -- the prfum
form can be generated from the prfm mnemonic when the offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99092
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
it seems that GAS is accepting an encoding that's not specified in at least
version DDI0487Fc_armv8_arm.
that says that
C6.2.212 PRFM (immediate) takes
" Is the optional positive immediate byte offset, a mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99092
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Hammond ---
@Martin
% gfortran -O3 -fprefetch-loop-arrays --verbose -c ctrsm.f && echo OKAY
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
Target: aarch64-apple-darwin20
Configured with: ../configure --build=aarch64-apple-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 50216
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50216&action=edit
Minimal reproducer as a test case
Attached is a minimal reproducer, as a test case. I don't have a fix for thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-17
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99144
Bug ID: 99144
Summary: -mtune=68040 doesn't respect restrictions set by
-march=68060
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
Bug ID: 99143
Summary: Bad section alignment on AArch64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99142
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99142
Bug ID: 99142
Summary: [11 Regression] __builtin_clz match.pd transformation
too greedy
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94596
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
--- Comment #5 from Egor Suvorov ---
Created attachment 50214
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50214&action=edit
Preprocessor output for Egor Suvorov's example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Egor Suvorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egor_suvorov at mail dot ru
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94596
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:963aecff2473080d748b2fc1ea2e32cef36cab11
commit r11-7272-g963aecff2473080d748b2fc1ea2e32cef36cab11
Author: David Malcolm
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69090
John Donners changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john.donners at atos dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99127
--- Comment #6 from Kurt Miller ---
For clarity, I see now there are two reduced test cases. My test patch fixed
the initial reduced test case but not the second one.
apoc$ cat pr99127.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94596
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99127
--- Comment #5 from Kurt Miller ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So, do you get the ICE with
> int c_pow_r_1, c_pow_r_0, c_pow_phase;
>
> void
> c_pow() {
> _Complex double r = __builtin_cexpi(c_pow_phase);
> c_pow_r_0 = __r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93773
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Specifically:
+--> ‘make_assignable’: events 5-6
|
| 5352 | make_assignable(INSTRUCTION *ip)
| | ^~~
| | |
| | (5) entry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93773
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99127
--- Comment #3 from Kurt Miller ---
Changing the gate function to return false does work-around the python ICEs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Las
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98741
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94362
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Oops; I was wrong; this isn't yet fixed on trunk. I can reproduce this with
the attachment. It also reports warnings from -Wanalyzer-too-complex.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94362
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-17
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99141
Bug ID: 99141
Summary: Name of deduced type unchecked in deduction guide
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/bEhjsc
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97362
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99072
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Cannot reproduce:
devvm1702:150>./xg++ -B./ -nostdinc++
-I../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
-I../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include
-I../../..//src/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99071
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99023
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99140
Bug ID: 99140
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a negative index into a
multidimensional VLA cast to one-dimensional
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99023
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8889c99aab4b599aa7ceb7079e69a9766171336
commit r11-7271-gd8889c99aab4b599aa7ceb7079e69a9766171336
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99136
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99136
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #1 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
Bug ID: 99139
Summary: ICE: gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol
'__tmp_UNKNOWN_0_rank_1'
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-17
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
Bug ID: 99138
Summary: ICE in gfc_match_rvalue, at fortran/primary.c:3738
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99137
Bug ID: 99137
Summary: ICE in gimplify_scan_omp_clauses, at gimplify.c:9833
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99136
Bug ID: 99136
Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:14854
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> > For punting on inlining these, I couldn't find any spot that would try to
> > verify at least remote compatibility of the passed in arguments and the
> > argume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> That could perhaps work for the #c0 testcase where the function actually has
> a non-VL parameter and so garbage in garbage out.
> But would that work also for #c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That could perhaps work for the #c0 testcase where the function actually has a
non-VL parameter and so garbage in garbage out.
But would that work also for #c2?
If one dumps the #c2 testcase with -O2 -fno-inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97362
--- Comment #8 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
The first diagnostic message of `#pragma GCC poison __deref` points to
in my MSYS2 installation.
The change is made here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/ci/555bee806560144c6a590
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
With the patch from comment #3, the following sequence with the problematic
call:
x.1_26 = __builtin_alloca_with_align (_24, 8);
g (WITH_SIZE_EXPR <*x.1_26, _22>, WITH_SIZE_EXPR <*x.1_26, _22>);
__buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Looking at how expr.c deals with WITH_SIZE_EXPR, perhaps we should do something
like the following:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
index a710fa59027..cdabeb6bafd 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #47 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-02-17 11:46 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
>
> --- Comment #46 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to John David Anglin from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #46 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #45)
> It seems we have 8-byte alignment specified using std::max_align_t and
> 16-byte
> alignment for pthread mutexes and malloc.
That's not a libstdc++ issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another, still undefined, but perhaps slightly less so, testcase is:
static int foo ();
int
bar (int n)
{
struct S { char a[n]; } x;
__builtin_memset (x.a, 0, n);
return foo (n, x);
}
static inline in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99131
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I usually write code that compiles warning free on both gcc and clang.
I only noticed this difference between gcc and clang as a result
of compiling the latest release of the tor browser. I thought it
woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #45 from John David Anglin ---
We see this fail on hppa-linux:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mysql-8.0&arch=hppa&ver=8.0.23-3&stamp=1613526368&raw=0
[ 49%] Building CXX object
storage/innobase/CMakeFiles/innobase.dir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95343
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced this bug and started to work on it. The bug is serious and
should be probably considered as P1 one. I try to fix it on this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0139b2a912585496f23c352f0e2c56895f78fbf
commit r11-7270-ge0139b2a912585496f23c352f0e2c56895f78fbf
Author: David Malcolm
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, the reason it only ICEs with -std=c++20 is that C++17 and earlier don't
allow virtual functions to be constexpr and therefore
potential_constant_expression_1 doesn't let it try to evaluate the expression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99131
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Note, the comment should read:
Note unlike the load/store/paddi instructions, these prefixed instructions do
NOT have a 'p' prefix, which means the code in rs6000_final_prescan_insn will
have to be modifie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We certainly can (and IMHO should) do:
--- gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c.jj 2021-02-10 07:52:32.702901304 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c2021-02-17 16:06:03.045953720 +0100
@@ -1386,7 +1386,7 @@ cp_generici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736
--- Comment #3 from bin cheng ---
hmm, seems topological order isn't enough for distributing a loop nest, we need
topological order plus inner loop depth-first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96997
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7fa3fa5796a46deb308c8c38b247e290d97f1f6
commit r10-9372-gd7fa3fa5796a46deb308c8c38b247e290d97f1f6
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7fa3fa5796a46deb308c8c38b247e290d97f1f6
commit r10-9372-gd7fa3fa5796a46deb308c8c38b247e290d97f1f6
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99135
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99135
Bug ID: 99135
Summary: [modules] implementation partitions are too visible
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99134
Bug ID: 99134
Summary: S390x: pfpo instructions are not used for
dfp[128|64|32] to/from long double conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
Bug ID: 99133
Summary: Power10 xxspltiw, xxspltidp, xxsplti32dx instructions
need to be marked as prefixed
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
template struct A { T c; };
template struct B {
A d;
constexpr T operator->() { return d.c; }
B(B &&);
};
struct C {
virtual void foo ();
void bar (B h) { h->foo (); }
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r11-5685.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in C++20 mode for |[11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
--- Comment #2 from Bob Miller ---
I have reported this bug to the gsl-lite maintainer as well here:
https://github.com/gsl-lite/gsl-lite/issues/281
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
--- Comment #1 from Bob Miller ---
Created attachment 50211
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50211&action=edit
preprocessed file that triggers the bug
b
gcc version 11.0.0 20210217 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-save-temps' '-std=c++20' '-shared-libgcc'
'-mtune=generic' '-march=x86-64' '-dumpdir' 'a-'
/home/bob/libexec/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/11.0.0/cc1p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99106
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7768cadb4246117964a9ba159740da3b9c20811d
commit r11-7267-g7768cadb4246117964a9ba159740da3b9c20811d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51839
Paweł Bylica changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chfast at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99071
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99071
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
d46c7e2c546 2021-02-17 | c++: ICE with header-units [PR 99071]
but there's now an ICE in write_defines. (reported elsewhere too)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99116
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99116
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24bf79f1798ad1d64812709001d2d11cd3e6849f
commit r11-7266-g24bf79f1798ad1d64812709001d2d11cd3e6849f
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99071
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d46c7e2c546b26d036856cf570694b832d3b1f54
commit r11-7265-gd46c7e2c546b26d036856cf570694b832d3b1f54
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98491
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06505e701dcfdb1b9855601d6cf0aa1caea62975
commit r11-7264-g06505e701dcfdb1b9855601d6cf0aa1caea62975
Author: Xi Ruoyao
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99131
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99131
Bug ID: 99131
Summary: gcc doesn't detect missing comma in array
initialisation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99115
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Compiles OK with:
GNU C++14 (GCC) version 8.4.1 20210216 [releases/gcc-8 revision
c6513400d84:39c49bc104d:1f3a07da9b6bcfa4733750826746bd18ac6f20db]
(alpha-unknown-openbsd6.8)
built as a cross from x86_64-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99050
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99127
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-17
Status|UNCONFIRMED
94 matches
Mail list logo
