https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102976
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7729d2c96d5eac9537c78d368bbc037bea13f988
commit r10-10399-g7729d2c96d5eac9537c78d368bbc037bea13f988
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104040
Bug ID: 104040
Summary: linker: when exported template class from module is
used in several .cpp with same tpl arg ~ undefined
reference to not default non-inline destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104039
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104039
Bug ID: 104039
Summary: AArch64 Redundant instruction moving general to vector
register
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0750r1.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104028
--- Comment #10 from Giulio Benetti ---
Ah, forgot to mention that it builds fine with -O0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101715
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103782
--- Comment #6 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
Thanks for the quick response! Fantastic!
That gets me below a dozen bug reports. I'll have to go break something new :>
g95/gfortran saved fortran IMHO. Thanks to all the gfortran heroes ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104028
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
It's a duplicated case vector load, where the second one is placed far off from
its table.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
--- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
> void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0 (int __initialize_p, int
> __priority)
> {
> struct InfoD.2399 D.2453 = {.arityD.2402=0};
Having poked at -fdump-tree-all-raw I now think `= {.arityD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103892
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104027
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:952b7dbb418198f86d7829aaf9d7f9fc7714a8b3
commit r12-6599-g952b7dbb418198f86d7829aaf9d7f9fc7714a8b3
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104029
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104029
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8931adfa0530590d21e74e5c7a1f8d26df575775
commit r12-6597-g8931adfa0530590d21e74e5c7a1f8d26df575775
Author: David Malcolm
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
gcc-11 for comparison did not seem to have `struct InfoD.2399 D.2453 =
{.arityD.2402=0};` style nodes and encoded stores explicitly:
main.cc.244t.optimized:
voidD.48 _GLOBAL__sub_I_main ()
{
struct I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
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=104028
--- Comment #8 from Giulio Benetti ---
Note that bug is still present in gcc 11.2.0 so it's probable it's still in
master branch.
Thank you for taking care.
Best regards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104028
--- Comment #7 from Giulio Benetti ---
Created attachment 52200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52200&action=edit
Pre-processed sg_vpd.c(sg_vpd.s)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104028
--- Comment #6 from Giulio Benetti ---
Created attachment 52199
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52199&action=edit
Pre-processed sg_vpd.c(sg_vpd.i)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104028
--- Comment #5 from Giulio Benetti ---
This is the output log with -v. Now it's built not in parallel and the file
where gcc fails is not sg_dd.c so I'm going to update .i and .s files.
```
Target: m68k-buildroot-uclinux-uclibc
Configured with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Great test, Andrew!
Something is completely dropped initialization of Info{} input argument to
s_op. As if it's lifetime ends before RegisterPrimOp{} enters:
--- main.s.good 2022-01-14 21:53:42.334571
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79685
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=104038
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem is reproducible with -O1 and above. To confirm it's not infinite
recursion I let the process run for about an hour before killing it. Memory
consumption seems to slowly but steadily increase as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The basic block being analyzed is bb 2 in clang::clangd::stdlib::initialize().
What's unusual about it is that it's a sequence of 2464 assignments like so:
:
SymCount_21 = 0;
SymCount_22 = SymCount_21 + 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104037
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-14
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 52198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52198&action=edit
Unreduced test case.
The attached translation unit reproduces the infinite loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 52197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52197&action=edit
Patch needed to trigger the infinite loop.
When the attached patch is applied the infinite loop can be triggere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104038
Bug ID: 104038
Summary: ranger infinite loop on a PHI statement
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77667
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems fixed on mainline for gcc-12.
Most likely fix: r12-6557 for pr67804.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104037
Bug ID: 104037
Summary: [12 regression] excess errors in
g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb43.C after r12-6581
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104036
Bug ID: 104036
Summary: Derived type assigment to allocatable with dynamic
type
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99256
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99256
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70e24c9682ddbcade0301665bccd8e7f928d0082
commit r12-6596-g70e24c9682ddbcade0301665bccd8e7f928d0082
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104035
Bug ID: 104035
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr57993-2.C fails with
excess errors after r12-6586
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
I wonder if makes sense to create either a RTL testcase which fails on s390
still (or did in GCC 10)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> A patch was submitted here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/581172.html
Another patch was submitted here too:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
A patch was submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/581172.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101260
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104005
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-14
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104034
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104034
Bug ID: 104034
Summary: Miscompilation of LLVM on s390x with -march=z13
-mtune=z14 in GCC 8.x
Product: gcc
Version: 8.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104033
Bug ID: 104033
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-compare2.C
fails with excess errors after r12-6578
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104026
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100952
--- Comment #15 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking through test results I see that gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c and
gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c are still failing today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104026
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79ae13067f6afabcbae4784ada07dcbb7f00953e
commit r12-6594-g79ae13067f6afabcbae4784ada07dcbb7f00953e
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101022
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100952
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase without any headers:
struct vector
{
vector(){} ~vector(){}
};
struct Info {
vector args;
int arity = 0;
};
struct RegisterPrimOp
{
[[gnu::noipa, gnu::noinline]]
Register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103782
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4a8ae123cd70188e4b4bf5e288a84e0a76fb0fd
commit r12-6593-ga4a8ae123cd70188e4b4bf5e288a84e0a76fb0fd
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 101475, which changed state.
Bug 101475 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow storing a compound literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101475
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101475
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101475
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72332337e3d8acbb21398b8d123f1bfe77a8327e
commit r12-6592-g72332337e3d8acbb21398b8d123f1bfe77a8327e
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I can remove std::string but not figure out how to remove std::vector yet:
#include
#include
struct string
{
string(int){}
};
struct allocator
{
allocator(){}
};
struct vector
{
vector(allocator t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89069
--- Comment #3 from Antony Lewis ---
This bug is still valid as of gcc 11.2.1 20220114
15 | end module test
| 1
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0x160a5b7 internal_error(char const*, ...)
???:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104012
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
To expand a bit on the fuzziness at level 1. The logic is documented under the
-Wformat-overflow warning like so:
Numeric arguments that are known to be bounded to a subrange of their type,
or string argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 104012, which changed state.
Bug 104012 Summary: [12 regression] -Wformat-truncation warnings not taking
previous length check into account
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104012
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104012
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Blocks|
n file included from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20220114/include/c++/12.0.0/spanstream: In
instantiation of 'std::basic_spanbuf<_CharT, _Traits>&
std::basic_spanbuf<_CharT, _Traits>::operator=(std::basic_spanbuf<_CharT,
_Traits>&&) [with _CharT = char; _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104026
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #12)
> It looks as if it is the same as in comment 8. If so, it does not seem to
> work. Cf. comment 7.
I meant: cf. comment 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104026
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #10)
> Created attachment 52192 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Could you try the proposed patch? Bootstraps cleanly for me and no
> regressions on Power or x86.
It looks as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104026
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #8)
> The following should help:
> @@ -1170,6 +1170,9 @@ vect_verify_loop_lens (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo)
> + LOOP_VINFO_PARTIAL_LOAD_STORE_BIAS (loop_vinfo) =
> +VECT_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #21 from Paul Menzel ---
Created attachment 52193
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52193&action=edit
[SeaBIOS] [PATCH] smm: Suppress gcc array-bounds warnings
For the record, I attach Kevin’s patch used to work ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104026
--- Comment #10 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 52192
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52192&action=edit
Proposed patch
Could you try the proposed patch? Bootstraps cleanly for me and no regressions
on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
--- Comment #7 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Of course, if something like libreoffice (I bet) carefully ensures it is
> paired, but constructs it from smaller separate literals, then it is fine.
(Or doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or support -Wbidi-chars=unpaired,ucn or -Wbidi-chars=any,ucn ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104029
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
So maybe add -Wbidi-chars-ucn, which is off by default.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Either we drop the UCN support altogether, or make -Wbidi-chars a 2 level
> warning, -Wbidi-chars mapping to -Wbidi-chars=1 which doesn't warn about
> UCNs and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104026
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Either we drop the UCN support altogether, or make -Wbidi-chars a 2 level
warning, -Wbidi-chars mapping to -Wbidi-chars=1 which doesn't warn about UCNs
and
-Wbidi-chars=2 that does.
UCNs indeed don't have th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-01-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wbidi-chars should not |[12 Regression]
|warn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104031
Bug ID: 104031
Summary: [12 regression] Global nested constructors generate
invalid code.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104030
Bug ID: 104030
Summary: -Wbidi-chars should not warn about UCNs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preproce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104023
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
I have the following suggestion:
- require all C++ files in gcc/testsuite to have .C extension with the
following exceptions:
1) allow .cc and .cpp for tests of inherited projects (./gdc.test)
2) allow .cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104023
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say renaming the *.C in tests to something else would only bring pain and
no gain.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104023
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104023
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104012
--- Comment #4 from Rolf Eike Beer ---
I have rebuilt gcc today, now at commit
b77e3b4e4589e56c01511fabdbaadb029cd47f5c.
Configuration line:
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_pre/work/gcc-12.0.0_pre/configure
--host=sparc-unknown-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99018
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103705
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Chung-Lin Tang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd7484d05cd4b7a9d741fe8bf6c4525406ed7620
commit r12-6584-gcd7484d05cd4b7a9d741fe8bf6c4525406ed7620
Author: Chung-Lin Tang
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104027
--- Comment #4 from Arnaud Charlet ---
Thanks for the report and investigation. The issue is actually caused by the
introduction of a "ghost" (empty for code generation purposes) unit
a-nbnbbig.ads, since the change you mentioned didn't change t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104029
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error |[12 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104029
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104028
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104028
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
CC|
org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52191&action=edit
preprocessed file
gcc-12 (GCC) 12.0.0 20220114 (experimental)
up to and incl. commit de196e5dd8ea4d0ed01a8c265afdd3676e27545b
configured with --program-suffix=-12 --enable-languages=c,lto --enable-lto
--disable-multilib
on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> I think the patch in comment 2 is the correct fix (OK to commit).
>
Thanks for the review and approval Richard!
I totally agree this test case can be fragi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95065
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For GCC 12 those features will still exist (because as explained above, that is
allowed by the standard) but they will give -Wdeprecated warnings.
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
