https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105272
Bug ID: 105272
Summary: Using entry inside module contained subroutines
changes subroutine's scope in DWARF
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105271
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105267
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
yes please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105270
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105271
Bug ID: 105271
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 (error:
unrecognizable insn)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53254184bda6305ac38e6e37480303b9f167b5ae
commit r11-9879-g53254184bda6305ac38e6e37480303b9f167b5ae
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
--- Comment #65 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94c9c6acdc14de186abe4ea59c54920fbfb60beb
commit r11-9878-g94c9c6acdc14de186abe4ea59c54920fbfb60beb
Author: Iain Sandoe
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102992
--- Comment #38 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6841e9fc63b260186f8c980c7e0534b6376b073f
commit r11-9873-g6841e9fc63b260186f8c980c7e0534b6376b073f
Author: Iain Sandoe
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100613
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:846d19e44c85c83a50e51867d854f8d98a087a77
commit r11-9857-g846d19e44c85c83a50e51867d854f8d98a087a77
Author: Iain Sandoe
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105270
Bug ID: 105270
Summary: gcc hangs with error "symbol definition loop
encountered"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104482
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65211
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8369b4e4c6433535981d377edc1d4abb799c9225
commit r12-8153-g8369b4e4c6433535981d377edc1d4abb799c9225
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105268
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like we mistakenly parse C_many as a placeholder-type-specifier, and
things go wrong from there.
For C_one cp_parser_placeholder_type_specifier -> finish_type_constraints
-> build_type_constraint -> b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65211
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105269
Bug ID: 105269
Summary: missing some library feature test macros in c++20 and
c++23
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
--- Comment #10 from HaoChen Gui ---
(In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #9)
> Could you backport the patch to GCC11? Thanks.
Please ignore it as the patch has problem. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
--- Comment #9 from HaoChen Gui ---
Could you backport the patch to GCC11? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101698
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97219
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97219
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1824da60663b4532199ecd051d8ba6da8995821d
commit r12-8152-g1824da60663b4532199ecd051d8ba6da8995821d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101698
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4e00ccef6c706a4a4a6446bffaf4111f98d5771
commit r12-8151-gd4e00ccef6c706a4a4a6446bffaf4111f98d5771
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101442
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad8161e6d7b26d690d90069ae9a129e7ac36892a
commit r12-8150-gad8161e6d7b26d690d90069ae9a129e7ac36892a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100838
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:019d6d4149ee97d55ce9efe4e5e470d38130cdeb
commit r12-8149-g019d6d4149ee97d55ce9efe4e5e470d38130cdeb
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:019d6d4149ee97d55ce9efe4e5e470d38130cdeb
commit r12-8149-g019d6d4149ee97d55ce9efe4e5e470d38130cdeb
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105268
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105268
Bug ID: 105268
Summary: type/value mismatch when using variadic concept
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #8)
> As spotted by Vincent Mihalkovic, the fix seems to be incomplete. If we run
> gcc-12.0.1-0.14.fc37.x86_64 on the following test-case, some diagnostic
> messages a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
mongodb is using these two values incorrectly and even misunderstanding what
they mean.
hardware_constructive_interference_size means the Minimum offset between two
objects which will avoid false sharing. S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #6 from Khem Raj ---
this is from mongodb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105267
Bug ID: 105267
Summary: [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c fails
after r12-8128-g6b7cc7294770ec
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266
Bug ID: 105266
Summary: new test case gcc.dg/pr105250.c fails in
r12-8134-g4e892de6774f86
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104293
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104073
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104072
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104071
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95325
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Khem Raj from comment #4)
> I dont think its a bug per-se, I am looking for fixing it right way. Should
> I pass a non-default value via gcc cmdline or adjust the size expectations
> in code.
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105251
--- Comment #4 from Khem Raj ---
I dont think its a bug per-se, I am looking for fixing it right way. Should I
pass a non-default value via gcc cmdline or adjust the size expectations in
code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97165
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P5
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #15 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|ICE compiling fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
This reduced code crashes with GCC 8 up to trunk:
struct S {
struct Prefs {
struct {
int i = i;
} p;
void Load();
};
};
void S::Prefs::Load() {
*this = {};
};
$ xg++ -c ff.C
ff.C:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> Marek, what -std do you use? I see the following compilation errors:
-std=c++17, but I saw that error too, followed by a crash with GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Marek, what -std do you use? I see the following compilation errors:
/home/chris/rpm/BUILD/firefox-99.0.1/layout/generic/nsContainerFrame.h:638:74:
error: ‘static void nsFrameList::operator delete(void*)’ i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #8)
> > In fact I see the ICE even without any options.
> >
> > Looks like for the NSDMI of mFocusText
> > leaks into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #8)
> In fact I see the ICE even without any options.
>
> Looks like for the NSDMI of mFocusText
> leaks into the gimplifier. But I cannot reproduce this with gcc 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
In fact I see the ICE even without any options.
Looks like for the NSDMI of mFocusText leaks
into the gimplifier. But I cannot reproduce this with gcc 11 on a different
box, weird.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51405
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #6 from Chris Clayton ---
I'm struggling to get the compiler command line. The build system is wrapped in
a build tool called mach and I'm darned if I can find an argument that will
cause it to report the command it is about to launc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
I tend to think Honza kept the bug open as a reminder to look into things
listed in comment #8. Those should probably be tracked in another bug,
alternatively this one should be adjusted to reflect that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
--- Comment #15 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105254
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105254
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2ebf2d98efe0ac2314b58cf474f44cb8ebd5244
commit r12-8146-gf2ebf2d98efe0ac2314b58cf474f44cb8ebd5244
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105242
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105242
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:469fad0161afeb9369010ad498198297993ca592
commit r12-8145-g469fad0161afeb9369010ad498198297993ca592
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug. I suspect the analyzer is getting confused about
the loop index on successive iterations (and state relating to this).
Please can you:
(a) specify exactly which compilation flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Resetting to P3, as the state is unknown.
I tried out the code in the original bug, and it looks fine to me.
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c bug659.c
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105252
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
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=101442
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Probably makes sense to remove that extra condition on the 11 branch now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105260
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Or find out why SRA doesn't optimize this (remove the useless union, replace
> all the un.value occurrences with a var with Foo type.
IIUC, it just isn't profit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #5 from Chris Clayton ---
The .ii file was huge so I've had to split it and then compress the parts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52804
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52804&action=edit
Second Requested file - part2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #3 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52803
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52803&action=edit
Second requested file - part1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105233
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, but while for alignas it is the standard that makes it clear, for the
attributes it is up to us to decide what to do.
Jason said he'd like for GCC 13 us to try making all attribute arguments
manifestl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105233
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Strobl ---
Thanks a lot for fixing this so quickly!
Here's my two cents about whether to special-case attribute aligned or whether
to make a general solution: aligned isn't the only attribute that's affected.
It'd a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> If one defines instead say bool operator<(const foo, const foo);
> then the built-in candidate isn't considered because of
> https://eel.is/c++draft/over.match.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105242
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Submitted patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593194.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> But not fixed on gcc-11 by the r11-8715 backport for PR100838, suggesting
> there was an earlier change on trunk that affects it.
Perhaps that's because of (f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52802&action=edit
First requested file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've put the [11 Regression] marker back in the summary, since it looks to have
been removed accidentally. But maybe it's fixed since comment 7, so not a
regression now? In which case, it shouldn't be P1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102300
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105242
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105217
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772
--- Comment #49 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> Anyway, I'm out of ideas and unfortunately Solaris/x86 is not on GCCFarm.
I'd meant to provide a Solaris/x86 system for the cfarm, but it turned
out every user would have to sign an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #12)
> > Should we revert the backport for 11.3?
>
> I think that will regress other tests (but admit I did not have time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #12)
> Should we revert the backport for 11.3?
I think that will regress other tests (but admit I did not have time to try
it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93602
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103871
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Should we revert the backport for 11.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #2 from jack ---
Additional info: g++8.4 and clang++ 3.8 have no such issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105245
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
commit r12-8144-gec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100111
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
commit r12-8144-gec03862f809e544a9b7d28067e51597dc92a0244
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
--- Comment #1 from jack ---
#include
using namespace std;
class Block
{
public:
Block(int n) : data{new char[n]}, size{n}
{
cout << "Block ctor\n";
}
~Block()
{
cout << "Block dtor\n";
delete[] da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105265
Bug ID: 105265
Summary: temporary object not destructed causing memory leaks
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105263
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca145c6306f19272ac8756d88c4eba0bfdf01dfb
commit r12-8142-gca145c6306f19272ac8756d88c4eba0bfdf01dfb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
Bug ID: 105264
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value gets confused
about var + i v.s. &var[i]
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105219
--- Comment #10 from Tamar Christina ---
nb_iterations_upper_bound is indeed set incorrectly and tracked to this commit,
commit 7ed1cd9665d8ca0fa07b2483e604c25e704584af
Author: Andre Vieira
Date: Thu Jun 3 13:55:24 2021 +0100
vect: Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
