https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #23 from Daniel Lundin ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #21)
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, daniel.lundin.mail at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
>
> > First of all, it is questionable if gcc is still conforming after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6)
> There's r13-1113 with introduced the use of visible().
>
> Can't see anything odd about the virtual function declaration that would
> suggest there's a mismatch between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899
Bug ID: 108899
Summary: [13 Regression] ERROR: can't rename to
"saved-unsupported": command already exists on i386
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
The attached patch can be bootstrapped and regress-tested and solve the
reported issue right after r13-5107-g6224db0e4d6d3b, but I can not reproduce
the failure with the latest trunk, interesting... I suspected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 54512
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54512&action=edit
Consider debug insn in no_real_insns_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108273
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-23
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108898
Bug ID: 108898
Summary: [13 Regression] Test introduced by
r13-6278-g3da77f217c8b2089ecba3eb201e727c3fcdcd19d
failed on i386
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
--- Comment #2 from danakj at orodu dot net ---
Thank you for the workaround!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danakj at orodu dot net
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108897
Bug ID: 108897
Summary: Comparing pointer to field in rvalue class is not
considered constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106977
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] slow |[11/12 Regression] slow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1370014f2ea02ec185cf1199027575916f79fe63
commit r13-6290-g1370014f2ea02ec185cf1199027575916f79fe63
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83670
Michael N. Moran changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mike at mnmoran dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-fstrict-flex-array= option doesn't affect the sanitization, if you want strict
sanitization of bounds, you should use -fsanitize=bounds-strict rather than
-fsanitize=bounds.
Furthermore, it is misunderstand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The corresponding Clang feature request is here:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60928
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Bug ID: 108896
Summary: provide "element_count" attribute to give more context
to __builtin_dynamic_object_size() and
-fsanitize=bounds
Product: gcc
Version: unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108895
Bug ID: 108895
Summary: [13.0.1 (exp)] Fortran + gfx90a !$acc update device
produces a segfault.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54508|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
--- Comment #1 from Kees Cook ---
The matching Clang bug is: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60926
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108894
Bug ID: 108894
Summary: -fsanitize=bounds missing bounds provided by
__builtin_dynamic_object_size()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
My apologies, I had understood attribute access read_only was different from
the attribute nonnull. So I filed a different report for this.
I didn't want to use __attribute__((nonnull)) because the optimizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> > Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two
> > stmts. I'm testing:
> >
> > ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two
> stmts. I'm testing:
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
>
> void f(const char * const str) __attribute__((access(read_only, 1)));
> void f(const char * const str)
> {
> __builtin_puts(str);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108871
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 108893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't this the same as PR 108871 ?
Also, the access attribute does not imply the attribute nonnull; it may be
appropriate to add both attributes at the declaration of a function that
unconditionally manipu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Bug ID: 108893
Summary: attribute access read_only
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Sure, it worked for the testcase because the STATEMENT_LIST only had two stmts.
I'm testing:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,8 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #10)
> Another simple patch is
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
> @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt (tree *stmt_p,
compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 13.0.1 20230222 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Another simple patch is
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-gimplify.cc
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ c_genericize_control_stmt (tree *stmt_p, int
*walk_subtrees, void *data,
tree t = tsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> It's not only "slow", it also produces a gigantic executable, the .original
> dump was 7.1GB when I stopped the compilation ...
Well, original dump for deeply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||106089
Keywords|dia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108891
Bug ID: 108891
Summary: libatomic: AArch64 SEQ_CST 16-byte load missing
barrier
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108830
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> There are also a huge number of spammy "'new_vals' is NULL" messages.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105958#c1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105958
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
A particularly bad example seems to be gcc.dg/analyzer/null-deref-pr108830.c:
https://godbolt.org/z/rabfxeaxz
which currently emits:
: In function 'apr_hash_merge':
:82:24: warning: dereference of NULL 'ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
We generate HUGE trees for the div sanitization, but I notice that
c_genericize_control_r doesn't use pset, like cp_genericize_r does. So I think
the fix would be to add a hash_set to c_genericize_control_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:48:07AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108878
>
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> For the specific testcase I also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108879
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||97110
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108890
Bug ID: 108890
Summary: Translation mistakes 2023
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108889
Bug ID: 108889
Summary: [12/13 Regression] (Re)Allocate in assignment shows
used uninitialized memory warning with -Wall if LHS is
unallocated
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96024
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31303c9b5bab200754cdb7ef8cd91ae4918f3018
commit r13-6289-g31303c9b5bab200754cdb7ef8cd91ae4918f3018
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It adds a new symbol to the library, which is not usually considered an ABI
change, because it's backwards compatible. Compiling with a new GCC and linking
to an old libstdc++ is never supported anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
--- Comment #28 from yan12125 <49tbwddbqeazdawz at chyen dot cc> ---
Thanks, so that commit changes ABI - objects built by patched GCC will not link
to unpatched libstdc++. I will stick to -Wno-restrict for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I do however expect there may be cases in GCC 13 where constexpr
initializers of floating type are accepted that do not meet the definition
of arithmetic constant expressions, since GCC is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #21 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, daniel.lundin.mail at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> First of all, it is questionable if gcc is still conforming after the change
> discussed here and implemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Bug ID: 10
Summary: error: definition in block 26 follows the use
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
The C90/C99 difference is due to ubsan_instrument_shift:
193 /* For signed x << y, in C99 and later, the following:
194 (unsigned) x >> (uprecm1 - y)
195 if non-zero, is undefined. */
196 els
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108858
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 102633, which changed state.
Bug 102633 Summary: [11 Regression] warning for self-initialization despite
-Wno-init-self
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102633
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108886
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why are you suggesting adding a check in two places when the first one just
calls the second one?
What would be the point of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDASSERT when there's already a
debug assertion there? Compilin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
FWIW, -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow,shift seems to be enough to trigger
the runaway compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE is actually in cgraph code, so it might as well be just some latent
cgraph bug triggered by the C++ changes.
What I see is that first_analyzed is set to a cgraph node for
_ZZN27LinkPaginationTimeline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-22
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108887
Bug ID: 108887
Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in
process_function_and_variable_attributes since
r13-3601
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #8 from Younan Zhang ---
Sorry for duplicate comments. Network issue :(
And thanks Patrik's explaination.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #7 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> (In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #6 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> (In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Younan Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108886
Bug ID: 108886
Summary: Add basic_string throw logic_error when assigned a
nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> > friend function template with a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #3 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Younan Zhang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> > #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> > friend function template with a co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
--- Comment #2 from Younan Zhang ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> #1 is neither a non-template friend declaration with a requires-clause nor a
> friend function template with a constraint that depends on a template
> parameter f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108885
Bug ID: 108885
Summary: Missing sanitization checks for optimized integer
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108631
Arthur Cohen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54506
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54506&action=edit
gcc13-pr108883.patch
Untested fix on the compiler side of emit_support_tinfos.
That said, these fundamental t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108884
Bug ID: 108884
Summary: [temp.friends]/9: Should constraint friends declared
in class scope differ with definition out of scope?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Lundin ---
Further info about the "ARM32 port bug".
In case you write code like `(uint32_t)&function_pointer` and the port happens
to use 32 bit pointers, the non-conforming cast is let through.
In case you cast to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108882
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108835
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108874
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > The regression is probably rtl-optimization/target specific since we never
> > had this kind of pattern detected on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108874
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The regression is probably rtl-optimization/target specific since we never
> had this kind of pattern detected on the tree/GIMPLE level and there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Can we split them out to a separate CU that we can build with -msse2?
>
> That is, does it work to simply add tinfo-x86-sse2.o by compiling
> fundamental_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106258
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb5365907317551cf9e4661aa78dd4f773e7a18a
commit r13-6273-gfb5365907317551cf9e4661aa78dd4f773e7a18a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69960
Daniel Lundin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107925
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612506.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Bug ID: 108883
Summary: [13 Regression] ABI problems with
_Float16/std::bfloat16_t rtti symbols on i?86
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108854
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
