https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109254
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1f6cb2cc3aad0521ad3181d5107e52be155fd18
commit r13-6965-gb1f6cb2cc3aad0521ad3181d5107e52be155fd18
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc4cde2e6aa4d6ebdf7f70b7b4359fb59a1915ae
commit r13-6964-gfc4cde2e6aa4d6ebdf7f70b7b4359fb59a1915ae
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109367
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually I think the bug is:
using T = decltype ([]{});
is broken with GCC. There are multiple testcases dealing with that even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109367
--- Comment #2 from Frank Heckenbach ---
My full testcase consists of many includes files, libraries etc.
The type declarations (corresponding to the first two lines of the
stripped-down example) are in a header to be called from other translat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109367
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Please file a different bug with your full testcase as I think decltype of a
lamba is a type which has local linkage but I could be wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109367
Bug ID: 109367
Summary: bogus -Wunused-function warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13 Regression] |[12 Regression]
|bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I already explained this on reddit, and it's already explained in PR 43943.
There are programs that are valid and must not give an error.
int f() { }
int main() { }
This never calls f() so ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #10 from contact at thunderperfectwitchcraft dot org ---
Now I get it, thanks to you both.
Why not additionally make the -Werror=return-type option to default? Would make
it easier to detect and solve the issue, compared to a crashing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is an intentional change in GCC 13, see PR 104642.
The comments in Bug 43943 describe old behaviour, things have changed.
The crash is not guaranteed though. The missing return is treated as
unreach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is because -funreachable-traps is also enabled at -O0. And disabled for
-O1 and above except for -Og. That changes all places where you either
__builtin_unreachable or places which gcc inserts that like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #7 from contact at thunderperfectwitchcraft dot org ---
I'm not sure if I understand you correct (as I'm not a native speaker): You say
that it crashes by chance because it is undefined behavior, right?
On reddit, I got this as a rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4969dcd2b7a94ce6c0d07225b21b5f3c040a4902
commit r13-6962-g4969dcd2b7a94ce6c0d07225b21b5f3c040a4902
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
As I will mention it again falling through from a function which has a non void
return type is undefined. So gcc thinks it is unreachable. With the option is
specify in comment #2, gcc 13 will cause a trap (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #5 from contact at thunderperfectwitchcraft dot org ---
As mentioned, it isn't anymore: According to the linked Thread in gcc 13 a
return value that contains a invalid instruction is generated on purpose if
there is no return statemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to contact from comment #3)
> I'm not sure if you read the thread I linked: If the statements there are
> correct, atm a instruction that causes a crash under any circumstances is
> generated and r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #3 from contact at thunderperfectwitchcraft dot org ---
I'm not sure if you read the thread I linked: If the statements there are
correct, atm a instruction that causes a crash under any circumstances is
generated and returned if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109366
Bug ID: 109366
Summary: No -Wanalyzer-null-dereference for unique_ptr
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109266
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> > Thank you for your reply David. Your analyzer is very good already.
> >
> > I played around a bit, a base of nullptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107396
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107396
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92f02e754ca2fbcd56dbd7b3949147d50bab99a0
commit r13-6961-g92f02e754ca2fbcd56dbd7b3949147d50bab99a0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109350
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod ---
Perhaps its clearer (HA!) if I turn the IL into a C program:
This is what the code sequence we are seeing effectively does:
int need_beer(int value);
int need_big_beer(unsigned long value);
int beer(int v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109361
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-31
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91196
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=109365
Benjamin Priour changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||priour.be at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109365
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #0)
[...]
> (Note: sorry David, I've binged through bugzilla doc and gcc bugs page yet I
> cannot seem to find the way to add this to the 'analyzer-c++' block, nor d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105523
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Crocker from comment #16)
> This issue is not specific to AVR target. I get the same spurious warning
> from gcc 12.2 arm-none-eabi when I compile the following code for ARM Cortex
> M0+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109365
Bug ID: 109365
Summary: Double delete yields -Wanalyzer-use-after-free instead
of -Wanalyzer-double-free
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96084
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that after the fix for pr106856 (CLASS attributes) we get the
right error messages now, and also valgrind suggests there is nothing left.
I tend to mark this PR as a duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103931
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Created attachment 52138 [details]
> Somewhat reduced reproducer
>
> The issue can be reproduced with a few less modules
The reduced testcase compiles for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109355
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109356
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> I believe attempting to doing so would result exponential time complexity.
Ah ok, I didn't realise it would be complex.
I don't know enough about the internals, I w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100289
--- Comment #21 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
But the basic question is: Should a first build pass --disable-gcov (glibc's
failure to provide this) or should GCC detect that there's (not yet) no
sys/mman.h (GCC problem)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100289
--- Comment #20 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
I see this as well for my CI builds using a (slightly hacked to use local
copies of the GIT trees) build-many-glibcs.py (from glibc.)
If you call call:
/var/lib/laminar/run/glibcbot-alpha-linux-gnu/21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For GCC 13+, you can use -funreachable-traps which is enabled at -Og at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43943
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||contact@thunderperfectwitch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109364
Bug ID: 109364
Summary: Missing return statement in a non void function gives
only a warning but produces a forced crash.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
URL: https://www.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109355
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
As I mentioned in previous discussions of this idea: any implementation
should *not* involve simply editing the old generated files in place; it
needs to involve keeping an unmodified copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109357
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109357
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109363
Bug ID: 109363
Summary: [13 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr23109.c cris-elf
reciptmp with r13-6945-g429a7a88438cc8
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
--- Comment #4 from Barry Revzin ---
Awesome!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced C testcase would be
struct S { long a, b; };
int
foo (struct S *v)
{
while (1)
{
__atomic_load_n (&v->a, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
if (__atomic_load_n (&v->b, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE))
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109087
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] csmith: end |csmith: end of year runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105580
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Summary|[13 regression] c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109052
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e9910e002d610db6e08230583c2976c9a557131b
commit r13-6959-ge9910e002d610db6e08230583c2976c9a557131b
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109087
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is true that with r13-6661 + r13-6691 this bug is just latent, so perhaps it
doesn't need to be P1 unless somebody comes up with a reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is true that with r13-6661 + r13-6691 this bug is just latent, so perhaps it
doesn't need to be P1 unless somebody comes up with a reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109339
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a35e8042fbc7a3eb9cece1fba4cdd3b6cdfb906f
commit r13-6958-ga35e8042fbc7a3eb9cece1fba4cdd3b6cdfb906f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109104
Yanzhang, Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yanzhang.wang at intel dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Bug 56183 depends on bug 90706, which changed state.
Bug 90706 Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] Useless code generated for stack /
register operations on AVR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Sorry, in this reduced example, it doesn't actually consume an extra register -
only rdi is used.
In this slightly less reduced example:
#include
struct S {
std::atomic size;
std::atomic read_ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 9.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109350
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
On 3/31/23 03:17, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109350
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109359
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
Bug ID: 109362
Summary: codegen adds unnecessary extra add when reading atomic
member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109359
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109361
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Some existing SARIF properties we could generate:
3.20.7 startTimeUtc property
An invocation object MAY contain a property named sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109361
Bug ID: 109361
Summary: RFE: SARIF output could contain timing/profile
information
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109163
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109360
Bug ID: 109360
Summary: RFE: check that generated .sarif files validate
against the SARIF schema
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109355
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Oh and the manual is not exactly out of date for that version of gcc. So the
> text you have would be wrong.
Sorry, you're completely right. A script could searc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
--- Comment #21 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #20)
> The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88792f04e5c63025506244b9ac7186a3cc10c25a
>
>
The trunk with t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I wonder if some other hints about properties of the empty rep would help
codegen:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h
@@ -204,6 +204,11 @@ _GLIBCXX_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88792f04e5c63025506244b9ac7186a3cc10c25a
commit r12-9372-g88792f04e5c63025506244b9ac7186a3cc10c25a
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109339
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109359
Bug ID: 109359
Summary: Compile-time rounding of double literal to float is
incorrect with -frounding-math
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109231
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #36)
> > --- a/gcc/tree-inline.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-inline.cc
> > @@ -2787,6 +2787,8 @@ initialize_cfun (tree new_fndecl, tree callee_fndecl,
> > pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109334
--- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
That seems OK; I had added that to be conservative since I really only intended
to add support for the access attribute back then and not the implicit
attributes. Could you please post that on the ML a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109339
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
__attribute__((__access__(__none__, 2))) on the ctor works, no need to add
pragmas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109231
--- Comment #36 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Sorry for wasting your time.
No worries: it's mostly the SPARC box doing the compiles ;-)
> --- a/gcc/tree-inline.cc
> +++ b/gcc/tree-inlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109339
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, we can pass something else there instead.
It would be nice if this worked to silence the warning though:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/stop_token
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/stop_token
@@ -395,1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109353
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> This doesn't help:
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/vector.tcc
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/vector.tcc
> @@ -936,15 +936,25 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83582
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65534
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80922
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This prevents the warning:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h
@@ -911,13 +911,25 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
/// null-termination.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91645
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e02c9d9116f243643c0daba8dbcc5d1795c827c3
commit r13-6956-ge02c9d9116f243643c0daba8dbcc5d1795c827c3
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin at v dot loewis.de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15450
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for long long, you can use -Wno-long-long which is documented here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wlong-long
Been around since 3.1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 107087, which changed state.
Bug 107087 Summary: [12/13 Regression] bits/stl_algobase.h:431: warning: 'void*
__builtin_memcpy(void*, const void*, unsigned int)' reading between 8 and
2147483644 bytes from a region of siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109339
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK I suppose we can change the library to avoid passing a reference there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109355
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We could add server rules to insert a banner into the HTML on every page, but
it's not trivial.
You might be thinking of PR 65699.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109318
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Most likely a duplicate of PR 107769.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109355
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh and the manual is not exactly out of date for that version of gcc. So the
text you have would be wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109355
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is another bug about adding a version to the manual pages. Thar would be
better. Touching old generated html files is not a good solution. Plus the
version is in the url.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107769
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Yes, you identified the correct commit. The same jump function is double
counted (once during iPA-CP and then again during inlining) when we drop
references and so an address reference is replaced with a re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109356
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358
Bug ID: 109358
Summary: Wrong formatting with T-descriptor during stream
output
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109357
Bug ID: 109357
Summary: GCC 13.0.1: internal compiler error in
cp/constexpr.cc:1685
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107048
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
