https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Janez Zemva from comment #7)
> The c++17 type deduction rules are also going on. This makes me wonder how
> std::make_tuple() circumvents the problem.
Easy, it does not use the C++17 deduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
--- Comment #7 from Janez Zemva ---
The c++17 type deduction rules are also going on. This makes me wonder how
std::make_tuple() circumvents the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > Yes it is called the copy (or move) constructor :).
>
> That is:
> auto t = std::tuple(std::tuple(1,2));
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Yes it is called the copy (or move) constructor :).
That is:
auto t = std::tuple(std::tuple(1,2));
std::cout << type_name() << std::endl;
Will produce the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
--- Comment #4 from Janez Zemva ---
Ok, thank you :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
--- Comment #2 from Janez Zemva ---
I have no idea, but it seems wrong me. Is there an explanation for the lvalue
references? I expected rvalue references, but that's unrelated to the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, even clang with libc++ produces the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103448
Bug ID: 103448
Summary: unexpected tuple collapse
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41731
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-27
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103447
--- Comment #2 from Greg Morse ---
Thanks for the v. quick reply. I feel like an idiot.G. M.
On Friday, November 26, 2021, 04:13:45 p.m. PST, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103447
And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103447
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103447
Bug ID: 103447
Summary: left shift operator gives wrong result for shift of 48
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e2e47391b316493b52fbb47b4b992b0863795dd
commit r12-5554-g9e2e47391b316493b52fbb47b4b992b0863795dd
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103446
--- Comment #5 from Zloten ---
I use the latest MinGW, target-host are Windows, x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103446
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
What target and what is the host?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103446
--- Comment #3 from Zloten ---
No. Just - O2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96592
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76c6be48b7841524974754f8ea7533b82c7de77e
commit r12-5551-g76c6be48b7841524974754f8ea7533b82c7de77e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103432
--- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk by g:a70faf6e4df7481c2c9a08a06657c20beb3043de (sorry for
> cut&pasting wrong PR number).
Tested on full libjxl-0.5 testsuite. All works now. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103446
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is there a full testcase including what options you used?
Did you use "-finput-charset=" and -fexec-charset= options?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103446
--- Comment #1 from Zloten ---
56481 = 0xDCA1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103446
Bug ID: 103446
Summary: Invalid wide multibyte character constant
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59298
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84693
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> so quite hard if not impossible to "fix" in genemit
The most complex one I saw in action was mod3 in aarch64.md:
(define_expand "mod3"
[(match_operand:GPI 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101853
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
> Then no change matching "g++.dg/modules/xtreme-" up to and including
> a29174904bb1 (r12-5240), which is the last run at this writing.
Update:
At 6ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:13:05PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418
>
> --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Ka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103411
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d540c7a4a7fb87b04d06e1ee7f9b004116279a4
commit r12-5550-g4d540c7a4a7fb87b04d06e1ee7f9b004116279a4
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103445
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Sorry, I don't understand anything above. I don't care whether you're using
mingw or mingw-w64, what I asked is how old it is. Libstdc++ expects a recent
version, and I'm not surprised if it doesn't work w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103438
--- Comment #8 from Nils Smeds ---
(In reply to Nils Smeds from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > Lemme take a look.
>
> Great, thanks.
prefetch-loop-arrays appears to be activated on arm,s390 and i386 at level -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102787
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Simpler and better patch which handles array sections as well as vector
subscripts:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.c b/gcc/fortran/array.c
index 6552eaf3b0c..f870c225195 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103445
--- Comment #3 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > How old is that? We generally only support building with recent versions
> > that are still supported by MinGW.
>
> dev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59716
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|variadic template multiple |[10/11 Regression] variadic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103445
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> How old is that? We generally only support building with recent versions
> that are still supported by MinGW.
dev C++'s mingw.
that is mingw-w64. not mingw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103445
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
How old is that? We generally only support building with recent versions that
are still supported by mingw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd1871c823e2ec9a500ac5ad3c87a117b934fa3b
commit r9-9846-gdd1871c823e2ec9a500ac5ad3c87a117b934fa3b
Author: Harald Anlauf
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103392
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:376b2c781d11f55644e92dfea91c3f214f20f4ac
commit r10-10311-g376b2c781d11f55644e92dfea91c3f214f20f4ac
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #9)
> "does not work for me" isn't too descriptive.
Well, you fixed a related issue, but not the problem in comment#0.
Try your patch on:
module m
contain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103445
Bug ID: 103445
Summary: build failure for old versions of mingw32 (not
mingw-w64)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70435
Klaus Rudolph changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lts-rudolph at gmx dot de
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59716
Klaus Rudolph changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:10:32PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103418
>
> --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Unfortunately the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103444
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
% gfcx -o z -fopenmp -g async_io_1.f90
% gdb ./z
(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/kargl/tmp/z
[New LWP 118209 of process 77440]
Thread 2 received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
[Switching to LWP 1182
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103444
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes7743
# of unexpected failures31
# of expected failures 72
# of unsupported tests 227
Each of as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103444
Bug ID: 103444
Summary: Fortran async IO is broken on FreeBSD
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 103442 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103442
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159
--- Comment #9 from Martin Uecker ---
Yes the clang behavior is useful.
If we get the optimal code for types with sufficient alignment, then I do not
think a separate set of functions would be required. A programmer simply can
use the _Atomi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45365
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103406
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.3|10.4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d3391d64799d490117ad48432a9ad2cf38b0091
commit r11-9317-g8d3391d64799d490117ad48432a9ad2cf38b0091
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 51884
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51884&action=edit
Untested fix
I am testing this fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96592
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.3|10.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96592
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.4|11.3
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101571
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102811
--- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #17)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #16)
>
> > ix86_expand_vector_set is mainly used by vec_set_optab which exactly takes
> > target as both input and output, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102811
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #16)
> ix86_expand_vector_set is mainly used by vec_set_optab which exactly takes
> target as both input and output, it seems we can't create a new target for
> that.
O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102894
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102270
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98723
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> This is affecting The Battle for Wesnoth:
> https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/6291
C++ std::regex is just terrible and highly likely be deprecated in the futu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101571
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d480b8403f2541402adeed82deb7eb028330b87
commit r10-10310-g0d480b8403f2541402adeed82deb7eb028330b87
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101965
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30033d9bb9d5e5303fadf448999f4f27e2693ed6
commit r10-10309-g30033d9bb9d5e5303fadf448999f4f27e2693ed6
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102894
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:923637b6cb70986e83ae0109ec4bcd26fdfe3624
commit r10-10308-g923637b6cb70986e83ae0109ec4bcd26fdfe3624
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102270
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3f135a50c3dd7fc04252e17d7fbb08ca95aa9a5
commit r10-10307-gb3f135a50c3dd7fc04252e17d7fbb08ca95aa9a5
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100863
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c86e63cb0383a38ec3dea24e9b3fe2f6e312057
commit r10-10305-g5c86e63cb0383a38ec3dea24e9b3fe2f6e312057
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101583
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c86e63cb0383a38ec3dea24e9b3fe2f6e312057
commit r10-10305-g5c86e63cb0383a38ec3dea24e9b3fe2f6e312057
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc56c03a7a7f034f98a835dcb7047ad3d2ace6bd
commit r10-10304-gcc56c03a7a7f034f98a835dcb7047ad3d2ace6bd
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100863
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc56c03a7a7f034f98a835dcb7047ad3d2ace6bd
commit r10-10304-gcc56c03a7a7f034f98a835dcb7047ad3d2ace6bd
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102811
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> > > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> > > > >
> > > > > Jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102811
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> > > >
> > > > Just noticed that for some reason two VPXORs are emitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #4)
> Simply adjust the sequence of dot instruction could produce expected code,
> is this correct?
No it isn't. Sorry.
> foo:
> .LFB0:
> .cfi_startproc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |powerpc64le-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101870
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.3|10.4
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101870
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2139a9a95e624f99f470191335495d02254e1f1
commit r10-10301-ga2139a9a95e624f99f470191335495d02254e1f1
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51881|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159
--- Comment #7 from Martin Uecker ---
I do not think these functions are meant only as internal tools to implement
the language features.
We also seem to agree that the documentation implies that there should work for
all types and does not c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> #0 gimple_set_bb (stmt=0x3fffb01a2be0, bb=0x0) at ../../gcc/gimple.c:1772
> #1 0x107209b0 in gsi_remove (i=0x3fffd7c8,
> remove_permanently=) at ../../gcc/gimple-iterator.c:56
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102811
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> > >
> > > Just noticed that for some reason two VPXORs are emitted. One should be
> > > enough for both VPINSRW insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103442
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Very likely dup of PR103441.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103437
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 51882
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51882&action=edit
Dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103437
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
With:
diff --git a/gcc/ira-costs.c b/gcc/ira-costs.c
index cb5ca8bc21b..ac993a9fa7d 100644
--- a/gcc/ira-costs.c
+++ b/gcc/ira-costs.c
@@ -1241,7 +1241,10 @@ record_address_regs (machine_mode mode, addr_spac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103437
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
@Martin: Can you please take a look? It's a ISRA clone of a CP clone :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103443
Bug ID: 103443
Summary: consteval function rejected as constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103303
--- Comment #3 from Felix Wang ---
Could I assume this is a compiler bug in layout engine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101608
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103440
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[12 Regression] wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103441
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103442
Bug ID: 103442
Summary: [12 Regression] trunk 20211126 ICE (segfault) in
cgraph_node::verify_node() building the 32bit libgo on
s390x-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
