https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102880
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.2.1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|tamar.christina at arm dot com |
--- Comment #17 from Tamar Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79405
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> We totally missed the jump threading of 3->5->7 path and the 4->5->8 path.
FAIL: path through PHI in bb8 (incoming bb:6) crosses loop
But but, it does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the major difference comes from mark_stack_region_used.
We have a missing jump thread in ethread.
Before the patch, ethread was able to jump thread all the way through:
if (_13 != 0)
goto ; [5.50%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566
--- Comment #28 from Hongtao.liu ---
Can be optimize
int gomp_futex_wake = FUTEX_WAKE | FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG;
int gomp_futex_wait = FUTEX_WAIT | FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG;
void
gomp_mutex_lock_slow (gomp_mutex_t *mutex, int oldval)
{
/* First loop sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100915
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100911
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102508
--- Comment #1 from Kacper Słomiński ---
Was about to report this myself; here is a minimal test case that reproduces
this issue without using any external libraries. It causes a slightly different
ICE in gimplify_expr in gimplify.c:14879 for GC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100916
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100907
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51649|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51648|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
So this is definitely a bad interaction between complete unrolling where we
had:
for (unsigned int i = 1; i < 2; i++)
if (this->coeffs[1] != 0)
return false;
And jump threading.
I am still redu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> > --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
> > Does libffi 3.4.2 work on Solaris? If yes, why doesn't it work in gcc?
>
> It does when gcc is configured with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101337
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is likely a "won't fix" bug, but I'll leave it open for now. The test
cases (now committed) are still XFAILed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101334
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54753
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
> Does libffi 3.4.2 work on Solaris? If yes, why doesn't it work in gcc?
It does when gcc is configured with gas, but doesn't when configured
with /b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101333
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101320
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101319
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102888
Bug ID: 102888
Summary: missing case for combining / and % into one operation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96517
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lcw at fb dot com
--- Comment #1 from Iain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102878
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102887
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102887
Bug ID: 102887
Summary: wrong warning location with macro expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Good news I can reproduce the warning with the preprocessed source on a native
x86_64-linux-gnu trunk GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
But yes, the implicit constexpr patch I've been working on would likely improve
this as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ed78f8bd84eb696579d928c816bc840664829b2
commit r9-9792-g5ed78f8bd84eb696579d928c816bc840664829b2
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Oc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:523dc71f5cb858da18e1f648269746dab519b445
commit r10-10228-g523dc71f5cb858da18e1f648269746dab519b445
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e74336df42fa36244d576dd155d7e2e2c42bc3a0
commit r11-9179-ge74336df42fa36244d576dd155d7e2e2c42bc3a0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102875
Jonathan Marler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1373066a46d8d47abd97e46a005aef3b3dbfe94a
commit r12-4619-g1373066a46d8d47abd97e46a005aef3b3dbfe94a
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Oct 21 09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101304
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6aceeb3fb64b0e82fc3301026669062797ec01a5
commit r12-4618-g6aceeb3fb64b0e82fc3301026669062797ec01a5
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, somehow unroll messes up the relationship ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
So in uninit1 we have:
if (_6691 != 0)
goto ; [5.50%]
else
goto ; [94.50%]
[local count: 17344687]:
goto ; [100.00%]
[local count: 298013267]:
[local count: 315357954]:
# const_up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #21 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tobias, did your big patch fully fix this issue so that we can close it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
It's not clear to me that this optimization should use the constexpr machinery;
as I commented on bug 4131. If optimization turns the initialization of a
static variable into a simple matter of storing a co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51648&action=edit
preprocessed source
unreduced preprocessed source which fails still as of r12-4600.
-fno-PIE -c -g -O2 -fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94022
Bug 94022 depends on bug 94070, which changed state.
Bug 94070 Summary: Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled,
SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102842
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The patch just hid the bug. I believe the bug is still present on the trunk
too.
The insn in question is
(insn 26 64 109 3 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 134 [ _12 ])
(plus:SI (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102886
Bug ID: 102886
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-18.c fails
starting with r12-4607
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102859
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102885
Bug ID: 102885
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE when compiling
gfortran.dg/bind_c_char_10.f90 with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102854
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 51647
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51647&action=edit
gcc12-pr102854-wip.patch
WIP patch. Clearly still more work is needed, apparently pointer iterators
in non-re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102884
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 51646
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51646&action=edit
Change test to not use std::string
This patch changes the testcase to use a custom instantiation of
std::bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102867
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> > @H.J. Can you please document that one needs at least i686 CPU for the
> > functionality?
>
> Like this?
>
> diff --g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102884
Bug ID: 102884
Summary: Incorrect compile error with id-expression in requires
clause before member initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #0)
> Does this testcase require overriding operator new[] in the library itself,
> not only the testcase?
Yes, I think so. The allocations done by the std::string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102358
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f7976f65b45c457b57bfc2c55ec845771e0d3c2
commit r12-4617-g5f7976f65b45c457b57bfc2c55ec845771e0d3c2
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102764
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102764
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9262ae450d6a57837c58645c2ee66365bbe08338
commit r12-4616-g9262ae450d6a57837c58645c2ee66365bbe08338
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> @H.J. Can you please document that one needs at least i686 CPU for the
> functionality?
Like this?
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index c66a2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102883
Bug ID: 102883
Summary: Calling co_yield with initializer list containing
shared_ptr causes internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102847
--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The build is indeed once again working on power 7. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882
Bug ID: 102882
Summary: [AIX] 23_containers 96088 testsuite failures
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||4131
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
>
>
> So, presumably _62 == 0 cannot be true. If _62 == 0, then
>
> 0 = _30 >> _6;
>
> But that cannot happen because _30 is 2 if you follow the series o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102881
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #0)
> template
> using R = decltype([] { return 0; }());
>
> template
> auto you_can_see_me() -> R {
> return {};
> }
>
> int main() {
> you_can_see_me<0>();
> }
>
> GCC rejects w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, I see, there is still the team->work_shares array where the whole team
structure in which it is present is allocated with gomp_malloc.
So, either we need to drop the aligned (64) attribute regardless of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 51644
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51644&action=edit
32-bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 loop_ull.[is]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Ok, so, first question, is GOMP_HAVE_EFFICIENT_ALIGNED_ALLOC defined in your
> case?
It is since all of HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC, HAVE_POSIX_MEMALIG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, so, first question, is GOMP_HAVE_EFFICIENT_ALIGNED_ALLOC defined in your
case?
Can be seen e.g. from objdump -dr alloc.o and seeing if gomp_aligned_free is
just a (tail?) call to free without anything el
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102838
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>> Does the committed patch fix the issue on Solaris?
>
> I'll s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102881
Bug ID: 102881
Summary: gcc totally broken when trailing return type combine
with decltype lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102880
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
--- Comment #3 from Mathias Stearn ---
> Why not just make the function constexpr though?
That isn't always possible. Sometimes the initializer may call a third-party
function that is inline, but not yet marked constexpr (it may need to support
jmp .L9
.cfi_endproc
gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211021 (experimental) (GCC)
Started with
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102585
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102766
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102766
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
commit r12-4608-gb4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102585
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
commit r12-4608-gb4702276615ff8d43bc910e7a54fdd850ad8d461
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.2.1, 12.0
Ever confirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:701ee067807b80957c65bd7ff94b6099a27181de
commit r12-4607-g701ee067807b80957c65bd7ff94b6099a27181de
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Ve
t 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211021 (experimental) (GCC)
Started with
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=2e96b5f14e4025691b57d2301d71aa6092ed44bc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102875
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102878
Bug ID: 102878
Summary: Internal compiler error with coroutine calling
constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102842
tt_1 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #11 from tt_1 ---
(In reply
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
